I'd Rather be Pushy than Mushy

Here are some parts of a comment I wrote in response to a reader's comment -- I thought they deserved their own post.

The reader thought I should "own" my biases:

I do not "always" have an opposing view to the liberal media. I have stated this several times. Even if I did, having an opposing view does not necessarily mean one has a bias. Having a bias means that you draw negative inferences about individuals or ideas or actions based solely on their characteristics, not on who or what they actually are, say or do. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying -- the time thing...)

I admit to being skeptical, so that is why I reserve judgment and dig deeper from sources on both sides, and then I sometimes choose to give a voice on my blog to the argument that seems more reasonable. It just so happens that it often does not come from mainstream sources. (The views I agree with in the mainstream are already getting enough press, so I'm sticking up for the underdog. I always have.)

The reader mentioned Sarah Palin complaining about sexist coverage, after saying months earlier that Hillary Clinton shouldn't "whine" :

Yep, Palin said that at the Newsweek forum. And then Palin herself was put under an even more intense spotlight than Hillary ever was. Plus on top of that, her husband and children were dragged in. Did Hillary ever have her wardrobe expenditures questioned, while not only the men's weren't but none of their expenditures were questioned? Was Hillary ever accused of using her sexiness -- or was Obama ever taken to task for using his charm? There were a lot more examples.

Under the kind of unprecedented pressure that Palin experienced, I think she showed great restraint and poise and I'm not going to hold anything against her for making a few pointed comments after experiencing a situation that she could never have foreseen when she made that statement at the forum.

The reader said I shouldn't say that anyone's comments are "eerily similar" to others, when mine are too:

My "eerily similar" comment was more so to point out that people keep perpetuating false arguments. The writer proposed an alternative course of action for Palin [in the supreme court appointment] that was not available -- and had been reported days before that post was written -- by conservative outlets, that is. And yet, there it was again.

I don't purport that I come up with all that much that is totally new and innovative. I'm just hoping that my sparkling personality will draw some new faces to have a look at an alternative point of view. (ahem)

So it's best not to trust any single source, and it helps to get other opinions -- even if you end up disagreeing with them most of the time. Because then you can continue to defend your arguments without perpetuating falsehoods. And who knows -- maybe even once in a while, you'll change your mind.

The reader mentioned they had visited Team Sarah's chat room and saw racist comments. They said they would rather stay in the mushy middle:

If you read more of my posts, you'd know that Team Sarah has been in a constant battle to rid itself of fake members who invade the chat room and post those terrible comments to do exactly what it did to you (not that you'd necessarily be joining) -- to drive away good folks by besmirching the community.

Yeah -- real integrity in some of those Obama supporters... Can't just let there be actual debate -- they have to tear about an opponent, sully their reputation. I guess they know that they would lose a fair fight.

But that's my bias, eh?

So -- should you let yourself be manipulated by the likes of them (and yes, I know that they exist on both sides - that's part of my point) -- let them frighten you from taking a stand on the important issues? Should you shy away, hide in the safe middle zone? That's where they want you, so they won't have to deal with you.

If you don't take a stand -- whichever side you're against loses you as an adversary. They win just a little -- and look how they did it. By being nasty. I just can't let myself be used like that.

I'm not saying you have to take an extreme position on every issue -- believe me, there are many issues I don't feel very strongly about, and the middle is just fine for me. But it's not because I was turned off and chose to escape there. And if it came down to it -- I would choose a side if I had to.

If we can't stand up for what we believe in -- why bother showing up at all?

 

Comments

[Mushy Middle (still)]

Thank you for your response. I respect your side of the argument, but I'm stickin' by my guns, especially when you infer that racist comments on the Team Sarah chat room were written by Obama-supporting thugs and not possibly -- gasp!-- by God-fearing Sarah Palin supporters! You'll clearly defend Sarah Palin's (and her supporters') actions, no matter what occurs. For you, Sarah Palin is completely above reproach.

You question Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and well you should if you feel so inclined. It's your right as an American. But it's quite evident in your posts that you toe the party line, whether you'll admit it or not. As Jessica respectfully put it: "Balanced? Not yet..."

Good luck on the continued development of your blog, though.

[Colette Moran]

The thing about the racist posts -- we'll never know. There are plenty of people with small minds on both sides of the fence. Even in *gasp* the Democratic Party!

(I'd bet dollars to donuts that those guys wearing the "Sarah Palin is a C---" shirts were not McCain voters.)

But it is the policy of Team Sarah that such language is not allowed. Anyone who uses it is kicked out. I have reported people on more than one occasion.

SO I hardly think that every supporter of hers is beyond reproach. Nor is Sarah herself -- but so many are piling on -- writing major stories about the nit-pickiest of issues, I hardly think I need to go into detail about how she and I are worlds apart on gun control, e.g.

Toeing a party line? Hardly.

Balanced? What does that really mean? As I've said -- I'm trying to add balance to the blogosphere and the media at large. My leanings to the right are hardly a threat to the major tilt to the left.

What I will definitely aim to be is fair -- while I may not be able to present all the arguments from an opposing view, I will not perpetuate blatantly false info. (And I ask that you all kindly point out any that might have slipped thru -- again the time thing sometimes prevents me from being totally on top of everything.)

But that's what I feel this is all about -- helping us all to be a little better-informed. Knowledge is power.

[freeta goodholm]

I made the same mistake!
When I read racist comments I automatically assume they're democrats.

[Mushy Middle (still)]

For goodness' sake! I don't assume anyone spouting racist comments is a Republican or a Democrat. I assume he or she is just ignorant. I'm repulsed by "Sarah Palin is a C---" t-shirts, and I agree that there are nasty people on both sides of the aisle -- in fact, these days, the political waters are so brackish, when someone asks if I'm Republican or Democrat, I'm compelled to ask them, "On which issue, please?"

I just have a problem with your assertion that racists on Team Sarah are Obama supporters who've hijacked the site. That's all. Unless you have concrete proof of that, then it's wrong to assume.

[Colette Moran]

My point wasn't about assuming anything -- it was that you dismissed Team Sarah outright when we *don't* know for sure who is writing the comments, AND despite the fact that it is contrary to the site's policy.

And there *was* concrete proof (or about as close as you can get in these matters) that some of the posts were from "trolls." They even boasted about their exploits on other (liberal) sites.

And whereas the occasional racial slur in the chat room could have come from either side, I think there was no mistake that the hideous chat room takeovers and the obscene photo sent to me were from the "opposition."

You jumped to a conclusion about Team Sarah and then perpetuated that false notion. I understand what you mean by "brackish" (great word -- very appropriate) by let's not further sully the waters by placing any blame wrongfully.

Reserve the contempt for true perpetrators, whichever side they're on.

[Mushy Middle]

Well, this is my first foray into responding to a blog post, and I have to say it's been slightly frustrating not to be able to have a face-to-face conversation, because you and I are saying the same thing back and forth to one another, but you're applying your perceptions to one side, and I'm applying them to the other -- but our viewpoints are not dissimilar.

So I'll leave this online responding to everyone else and leave it at this: I don't have contempt for anyone -- Palin, Obama, McCain, or anyone else, because I don't hold anyone up on a pedestal. There's only one Messiah, and even my Democratic friends agree that he's not a pitbull in lipstick nor an American president.

Thanks again.

[Colette Moran]

AMEN!