Andrew, sorry I missed that, questions were appearing very fast and yours is the only one that the whole message is not bold.
As I wrote in my nomination stub:
If anything, my participation as a user has been highly visible. As a moderator I will take a step back, encourage users to take ownership of the community and intervene only when necessary.
It's not up to the moderators to ensure that your voice is heard, or even shape the community. That's completely up to you and every other user, and the moderators should intervene only when absolutely necessary.
Just yesterday we appointed our Blog Overlord, Jarrod Nettles. Why him? Well, if you take a look at blog related Meta discussions, you'll notice that he has been pushing for the blog since early on. To be fair, Thomas Owens started the discussion back in June, and would be perfectly capable of taking point, as would quite a few other members. But that doesn't really matter, we needed a point man, Jarrod was around yesterday when we had the discussion, case closed.
The moderators, in this case Mark Trapp, only stepped in after there was clear community consensus for the blog, plus a comprehensive list of topics and a sufficient list of volunteers. He contacted the team, reported back, and in a couple of hours we went from having no idea of whether the blog will kick off to discussing logistics.
That's pretty close to how things should work. You may consider this a lame example, because there wasn't really anyone opposing the blog, but I think my point still gets across: Participation is key and it's not the moderators' job to hand hold anyone. As a user I have been extremely active on Meta, and I've explored ways to get even more people to participate. As a moderator, if elected, I will try to encourage people to do exactly what I've been doing so far, but that can only happen if people actually care to participate.
I wouldn't really handle dissenting opinions any differently than any other user, the voting system is perfectly suited for that. The only reason I would wear the moderator's hat on Meta would be when discussions are getting out of hand, rude or otherwise offensive. Other than that, I'd be yet another user, and it would be completely up to the community to decide if my opinions have merit or not.