Wednesday, April 15, 2015


Apologies to those who subscribe to this blog and receive posts via e-mail. I accidentally sent out an unfinished version of this post yesterday by pressing the "Publish" button instead of "Save".

A dictionary definition of Partisan:
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Biased in support of a party, group, or cause

I suppose the noun version, #1, would apply to me since I'm a supporter of a cause, or causes, but I don't really like that one. I use the term more along the lines of an adjective- "Biased" as used in the beginning of #2, makes it usable. My own definition for use would be someone who sides with a group and takes positions only in defense of that group, or in attacking the other group. That's probably not too good of a definition, either.

Biased is the keyword. Which isn't to say we don't all have biases, but when those biases only apply to one group, that's when I'd call it partisan, as in the term "partisan attacks" which we hear fairly often.

Maybe that would include me, but what if you also support the opposing group sometimes? A few examples of what I consider partisan, partisanship, or partisan attacks:

For a short time an old National Guard buddy was a Facebook Friend. It seemed just about every day he'd post some comment critical of Obama, or Democrats in general. Funny, actually, as I never thought him all that political of a fellow while in the Guard. 

One day shortly after reading a post of his I commented. I don't recall the exact subject but he was blaming Obama for something. I pointed out that what he was complaining about wasn't exclusive to Obama. A couple days later, same thing, and I replied pretty much the same way. He defriended me.

He was unwilling to admit his side was guilty of the same thing because of partisanship, and would never have pointed the finger at his own group for doing the same thing.
Had to drive an inlaw's van to Southern CA a few years ago and couldn't figure out how to switch the radio from AM to FM. As a result, I was stuck listening mostly to right wing talk radio for the better part of 8 1/2 hours. 

Sean Hannity was on at least three times. His big issue at the time was Obama's recent physical where doctors suggested he might be drinking too much. Hannity wouldn't let that go. I was really annoyed knowing full well if the same was being said about Bush, he'd take the opposite side and defend him. I recall a TV incident where Bush was accused by his detractors of being drunk. I'd be willing to bet he defended Bush with fervor then.

Our guy is good. Yours not so good, no matter what.
A year or so ago the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat ran a story on Congressman Jared Huffman's efforts to change the Army Corp of Engineers policy of releasing water from its reservoirs in the fall.  That's been protocol for decades to prepare for flooding.

An earlier story on the subject showed concern from many in Sonoma County over those releases. After all, automatic releases of water don't make much sense in a drought. As a result, Huffman tried to take action.

The first comments to that story were ones berating Huffman. Not necessarily for what he did, but that he did it for nefarious reasons. I was quick to point out he deserved credit where credit was due (and I loathe Jared Huffman). His detractors, obviously of conservative bent, would have no part of that and continued running him down. 

I continued defending him, pointing out the story was not the first time we'd heard of the water releases and that Huffman was acting on the behalf of constituents who had valid concerns over the issue. I told them I was no fan of Huffman, but he deserved credit at least for that. Again, they wouldn't stop. 

Finally, I pointed out that all that was going on was simply partisan sniping and that we wouldn't be hearing any complaints from them if it was a Republican congressman. That seemed to end the discussion.

And it was  just pure and simple partisan sniping. They really weren't even making valid criticism of what he'd done but of his supposed reasons for doing it. If former congressman Frank Riggs had taken the same action, they likely wouldn't have commented at all.  Or, if they had, would have praised the action. Now that's partisanship.

So, am I a partisan for defending Huffman in one instance? I suppose so, at least by some definitions, but not by mine.


At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post gives me hope Fred. I take back all my comments regarding your toolishness. Rand Paul still sucks, though....

At 8:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But what about street trees Fred?

At 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it goes deeper than politics. Religion, race and class all thrive on the "my way is the only way" way of thinking.

Take religion. Why is it so hard to say that maybe the other religions are just as valid as yours? Yet, you rarely hear that sentiment voiced. People get indoctrinated to believe one way. Same with politics.

My parents werent especially political, so I'm not partisan either. I could care less about politics. My wifes family on the other hand are rabid partisans on the red side. They were honestly raised to believe that white, Christian people are better than any others. It's taught.


Post a Comment

<< Home