posted this over at CS as well

What the author of the post and Mr Fecke and Flash so cleverly sidestep is something that Mitch and other commentors at S.I.T.D. have tried to politely explain.
The folks with Growth and Justice are trying to backhandedly maintain that they are a bi-partisian group. The Star Tribune and NPR are more than willing to pass on that meme.
Mitch is unwilling to let that slip by uncommented. So are the folks who did the blog-swarm leg work.
The signatories have every right to make their pitch for more taxes, but no privilege to hide behind words like "bi-partisan" when we know it not to be true

But the Right's definition of Bi-Partisan is 'Just add Joe Lieberman and stir'

If you'all are willing to go with one token and call something bipartisan, why wouldn't it be fair for other groups to do the same thing.

Move the goal posts if you will, but take a credibility hit in the process.

So I challenge you, come up with a definition of BiPartisan that you are willing to apply globally all along the political spectrum.

Flash

Not to mention, Flash, you'll notice that a bunch of the people in the famous 3,492-page spreadsheet have given money to both sides. That's why they choose the misleading stat comparing the aggregate of money given to both sides, rather than noting how many of the individuals are personally bipartisan, to one degree or another. Basically, the blogswarmer's methodology counts anyone who has given a dollar to the Dems, regardless of contributions to the other side, as a dyed-in-the-wool pinko DFLer.

No question there are some DFL financial heavy hitters on the list who skew the money total toward the Dems. What they won't tell you is what percentage of the group has given to Republican candidates as well as Democrats.

I'd do the work but, you know, I've got better things to do. I'm guessing you do too.

"But the Right's definition of Bi-Partisan is 'Just add Joe Lieberman and stir'"

So I see all you leftybloggers saying. I do not recall seeing any credible GOP source saying anything of the sort.

Now, things like the original Iraq resolution, or the rejection of the Murtha Cut and Run plan, which were supported by WAY more than just Lieberman - THAT, we call bipartisan, because it objectively WAS.

"Move the goal posts if you will, but take a credibility hit in the process."

I reject the premise that any goal post has been moved. I challenge any of you leftybloggers to show any credible GOP commentator calling Lieberman's sole presence "bipartisan"...

...and even if you can, I STILL reject the premise. The GOP makes no premise of being a non-partisan commentator on the situation. The Patricians Bending Over For The Budget do - disingenuously. There's a HUGE difference.

"So I challenge you, come up with a definition of BiPartisan that you are willing to apply globally all along the political spectrum."

Majority of both parties would come close enough; I don't want to put more thought into it than that, because it frankly doesn't matter. You know it when they are...

...and when you see that 95% of a "bi-partisan" group's millions in campaign donations are going to one party, one can see when they are not, as well.

"a bunch of the people in the famous 3,492-page spreadsheet have given money to both sides"

Actually, Clown, you're being misleading; a small fraction of the people in the spreadsheet gave money to causes affiliated with the GOP, *however loosely*.

Among the 25 that I looked into in great depth, though, two gave *some* money to the GOP; one gave $250 (out of thousands) to Tim Pawlenty, and another gave $500 (out of thousands) to "Republicans for Choice", which is sort of like "Democrats for Tax Cuts", hardly the mainstream as far as determining "bipartisanship".

Part of the reason I did this as a blogswarm, Vobo, was to pick out details like that, so people like you couldn't say "but look! The money cuts both ways!". In any meaningful sense of the term, it doesn not.

Not to be too obtuse, Flash, but what does what you just said have to do with the situation in question, much less the price of tea in China?

If you want to have a discussion of ‘bi-partisan’ in a broad context, all well and good.

If you want to claim that Mitch and the blog-swarmers are bending the definition of Bi-partisan to exclude the signatories of Growth & Justices appeal (which I don’t stipulate,) again lets have the discussion.

What I maintain is that Growth and Justice is trying to hide behind the fig leaf of the word ‘bi-partisan’ They want to trot out the old staples of “invest in education, healthcare and transportation” and the ultimate ‘liberal’ shame game reason of “investing in our children future’.

And the vast majority of folks who don’t look at the issues in depth, who watch the local news for a sound bite or two, and glance at the front page might buy that. Especially with the cheerful enabling (by way of silence) of our local media.

But having the facts out there in detail, i.e. that Growth and Justice is just another pseudo Astroturf call for the same old DFL prescriptions and that rather than being a bi-partisan group they are a left sloping group of Nanny State enablers and fellow travelers is a useful thing to have accomplished.

Seems to me all those people qualify as bipartisan. By way of illustration, if a dude has s3x with 1 guy for every 9 ladies he has s3x with, I'm calling that dude a bisexual. Mitch may have reason to think differently about the question, of course.

Not that I don't totally support Mitch's lifestyle and right to marry whomever he may choose.

A better example, Clown, might be more like this:

Say a 22 year old guy wants to get jiggy with a girl with a Nazi Dominatrix thing going on. Awash in hormones, he helps out at a Hitler Youth rally once. Then he comes to his senses, goes to law school, gets a job as a reporter in New York, and spends the rest of his life as a fairly upstanding citizen. 3% of his life he spent doing something that he now abhors, and 95% of his life he's done the opposite.

Does that single lapse make him a Nazi sympathizer, or someone who was acting in what he perceived at the time to be his best short-term interest?

Mitch, shhhhhh. You promised you'd never mention my past like that, not even as a hypothetical.

Sorry Mitch. While the Nazi thing isn't a big deal, there's no washing out the moral stain of law school.

Mitch related: "Say a 22 year old guy wants to get jiggy with a girl with a Nazi Dominatrix thing going on. Awash in hormones, he helps out at a Hitler Youth rally once."

Some sixty years later that horny young man would choose a new name: Benedict.

Benedict, Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Vicar of Christ - or simply Pope Benedict XVI, as he's now known to the world's one billion Catholics.

And now you know the rrrrrest of the story. Good day!

Here's how Strib columnist Lori Sturdevant chose to inform her readers about the people involved with G&J on June 25.

"The list included some usual liberal suspects, with names like Dayton and Mondale. But there were surprises, too. One was Dick McFarland, the retired chairman of RBC Dain Rauscher and, if memory serves, a Republican. Right?

"Yes, I'm a Republican," McFarland said, though he confessed a fondness for Hutchinson's candidacy. "I really get passionate about this state. My whole life has been in Minnesota. Almost all of my investments are in Minnesota companies. Why wouldn't I want to invest more here?"

Sturdevant acknowledges "some" liberals, and then quotes exclusively from a Rebublican (who has the good sense to not support the Republican candidate, apparently)to defend the plan.

I think it's clear that the intent is to assist in the "bi-partisan" illusion.

If the column had been written from the perspective of, "hey, let's ask the Republican why he's signed on to this blatantly obvious (right Clown?)DFL plan", it would have been far more accurate. And honest.

http://www.startribune.com/314/story/511929.html

"Some sixty years later that horny young man would choose a new name: Benedict"

And sixty years after *that*, Angryclown answered the question, in preference to tossing a rhetorical turd on the table and slipping away in the confusion.

"Yes, I'm a Republican," McFarland said, though he confessed a fondness for Hutchinson's candidacy.”

According to Newsmeat.com, most of his campaign contributions (particularly in the last two election cycles) have been to Democrats, particularly Amy Klobucher and Ford Bell:

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=MN&last=McFarland&first=Richard

I’m not sure if “Moby” or “Rino” is the appropriate term in this case.

What, you're serious? The analogy was so dumb I thought you were riffing on Angryclown's comedic theme.

OK, so lemme get this straight. Your idea is that maybe those Republican donors were trying to impress chicks?

Thoroghly Wasted guessed: "I’m not sure if “Moby” or “Rino” is the appropriate term in this case."

Or maybe you right-wing wackos are chasing moderates out of the party by calling 'em names and insisting on wingnut political correctness at all times.

" I thought you were riffing on Angryclown's comedic theme"

And you were, for one brief instant, right.

AC, if you honestly think "political correctness" is a right-wing phenomenon, you're smoking a particularly potent sprig of wacky weed.

Or just talking out of your cavernous ass, which you've certainly proven more than capable of in the past.

Psych!

Dick McFarland considers himself a "Republican"...so we all must believe its true because HE says so.

Fine. I believe I'm the King of England. Must be gtrue, right? Cause I says so!

I don't know what all the fuss is about. If they say they're bi-partisan I can believe that.

50% DFL - 50% Socailist Workers Party. They never said which 2 parties !