Around the world, political writers begin their days hoping for an opportunity to attack the elected officials with whom they usually agree. They do this because writers are ever afraid of bias, and because not even the greatest human animals can't stand to be improved by the occasional bout of shellacking-induced introspection.
But goddamn it, it's really hard to find something to attack in Debbie Wasserman Schultz, because all of her public utterances look like this:
I talk to [our children] about what our values are and why I take the positions that I do, and I explain to them why it's important that we fight for education for other kids, why it's important that we make sure that everybody has health care, why it's important that we stand up for other people's rights, whether it's rights based on their sexual orientation or rights based on their skin color, or making sure that as Jews we fight anti-Semitism.That's from a rather nice Q&A published in Sunday's Sun-Sentinel. And I suppose one might object to the bizarre notion that there are "rights based on sexual orientation," but that's probably a slip of the tongue -- Wasserman Schultz most likely meant that we should make sure people aren't denied rights based on sexual orientation/color/Jewishness, etc.
Wasserman Schultz's overwhelming pleasant blandness is a great argument against the idea that "the media" can or should be "fair and balanced." The idea's absurd. To be "balanced," you'd have to invent some horrible thing about which to castigate inoffensive little Wasserman Schultz every time you gripe about a crazy ideological ejaculation from an opposing political party. To be "fair," you've just got to call the shots as you see them, when you see them, to the best of your ability.
The latter approach is honest, if necessarily imperfect. The former's imperfect and dishonest. So screw it. What I mean to say is: Debbie, I'd like to write about you, so could you please be a little weirder?
Follow The Juice on Facebook and on Twitter: @TheJuiceBPB.
