Category: Minnesota Politics
Posted: 12/31/06 14:26
by Dave Mindeman
My
"10 Worst Political Persons in the State" seems to have sent the Brodkorb fan club into a tizzy. MDE has a link to some
character who takes exception to my "facts".... it has to be noted that virtually nobody says anything about any of the other names on the list ... only Brodkorb draws the attention. Mention Brodkorb's name in any context and it sets his little "machine" in motion.
Anyway, I'll do some more "clowning" around here and take up some of those "issues" from this person. Here's the first quote:
"What I found was one of the most factually inaccurate accumulations of information I’ve ever seen." Really? Let's move beyond the fact that this was just my own personal opinion piece... and take up the only piece of "fact" he talks about -- the Ritchie-Kiffmeyer meeting. I said Kiffmeyer invited Brodkorb... for which he offers a correction:
"Anyone listening to yesterday’s Final Word found out that Mary Kiffmeyer didn’t invite Brodkorb. It might seem like a trivial detail but one of her staffers invited Michael."I guess it is OK for us to assume that Kiffmeyer's staff must be in control of her meetings and contacts....apparently without her knowledge.
He then goes into another diatribe (similar to "Brodkorb speak"
attacking Mark Ritchie:
"Mark Ritchie ran a slash & burn campaign, going so far as calling Ms. Kiffmeyer “the most partisan Secretary of State in Minnesota history”, a storyline echoed by every DFL activist. Kiffmeyer’s people simply wanted someone there to make sure that Ritchie didn’t try pulling any stunts after the meeting. They didn’t want him marching out of the meeting & saying that Ms. Kiffmeyer was being a partisan." Ritchie ran a slash and burn campaign? Pretty tame compared to ...oh, let's say John Kline? Calling Kiffmeyer the most partisan SOS in Minnesota history??? Well that's an opinion shared by not only Democrats but by the Independence Party...when she tried to knock their candidates off the ballot. Frankly, I think Ritchie was smart to cut the meeting short .. the only stunt being pulled was coming from Kiffmeyer.
Here's another winner:
"Mr. Mindeman thinks of Michael’s attendance as part of Michael’s ongoing “hatchet job”. There was a time when candidates were honorable enough to not need an observer."As to my opinion that this stunt was part of Brodkorb's ongoing hatchet job...you got that right buddy! But I'm not sure what or when this honorable time was, when candidates didn't need an observer. Who brings observers, ever? Besides Kiffmeyer?
Next:
"Mr. Mindeman’s hyperpartisanship won’t allow him to admit that Michael’s digging into Matt Entenza’s hiring of an opposition research company to spy on Mike Hatch is investigative reporting. Mr. Mindeman refuses to admit that Michael broke that story over a year before the Agenda Media picked it up."You know, if the Entenza item were to stand on its own, then Brodkorb had himself a good story. The problem is, the legitimate stories get buried in the "crap". A legitimate media reporter who uses an MDE post as the sole basis for his story would be run out of town. There is no question that Brodkorb can find things...lots of things on just about anybody...especially the way he slants them. The actual "news" is buried in junk like stolen campaign signs or Walz's traffic ticket or Kline's campaign junk or Ritchie attending a DFL event. You can make your point but to attempt to elevate everything to scandal status -- well it all becomes tabloid.... and if the media starts treating that as serious news then they bring themselves down to that level. And some do...that's why they were #3 on my list.
Then we get these 3 seemingly "rhetorical" questions, that, I guess are supposed to prove that I have it wrong when I suggest that Brodkorb never looks at both sides of his issues:
--How many sides need to be presented to know that Dittrich abused her power?
--How many sides need to be presented to know that Mr. Ritchie was up to no good?
--How many sides need to be presented before we know that Matt Entenza is corrupt? These questions are kind of "clowny" themselves. First, Dittrich offered an explanation... that IS another side. An idea that Ritchie is "up to no good" is an opinion, not a statement of fact. And the Entenza story did get into print...and if Brodkorb had been considered a "credible" source, maybe it would have gotten there sooner.
And lastly:
"Is Mr. Mindeman suggesting that Michael’s agenda is hidden when he writes “they admittedly have slanted points of view, but that’s usually not hidden from the reader”? I’d suggest that Mr. Mindeman take a look at the title of Michael’s blog. It’s called Minnesota Democrats Exposed. What does Mr. Mindeman find mysterious or sinister about Michael’s reporting? What part of “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” doesn’t Mr. Mindeman understand?"I know Brodkorb doesn't hide his views or partisan standing...
now, but he did try to hide himself anonymously for some time. His identity was forced out. What I was trying to say, is that blogs hide the connections they have to campaigns (that was forced out of Brodkorb, too -- although he has his proud little disclaimer now). And it is not just Brodkorb... there are left blogs that do the same. On this blog, none of us are paid by anybody.... our name is MN Network for Progressive Action. We are progressive and our mission statement speaks for itself. We stand by that and hide nothing. We promote progressive candidates and will continue to.
I think people appreciate where we come from and what we are trying to do (1400 unique visitors per day). They can take our commentary with a grain of salt.... we are commenting on the news, not trying to make it.
