To My Liberal Friends

[miguel]

Oh brother, Phillip! You insist on confusing the ordinary definition of moderate with the media’s euphemistic use of it. Sure, they may use it in its ordinary sense occasionally. But they also frequently equate being pro-choice with being a moderate. I cited a typical example. You won’t even acknowledge it. The only reason I raised it, BTW, was to point out the irony of equating the protection of baby killing to being a moderate, when nothing could be more extreme. I didn’t expect a debate over the obvious.

 

[Hildebrand]

Philip P:

Edit to the second half of my response above:

You seem to overlook the fact that in the media references I cited, it is not in reference to abortion that they are being called moderate. Your contention seems to be that ONLY abortion determines whether one is moderate, yet clearly this is not so. Yet even among those noted as moderate overall, some are strongly anti-abortion. Look at Gordon Smith (OR), who in the citation I provided is a “moderate” in reference to Medicaid spending. Rated 91% by the National Right to Life Committee in 03-04, 100% in 01-02 and 99-00. Rated 0% by Planned Parenthood in all these years, and 14% by NARAL in 03 (which raises the interesting question of what NARAL and the National Right to Life Committee agreed on that year).

Look at John McCain, in my citation called a moderate in reference to his stance on the filibuster. Rated 82% by National Right to Life in 03-04 and 66% in 99-00. He was rated only 33% in 01-02, yet this seems to be an anomaly, especially considering that he has been rated at 0% by Planned Parenthood and NARAL all these years, including 01-02

So, some moderates are pro-life. Some moderates are pro-choice. But it is not true, as you say, that ALL moderates are pro-choice.

info from www.vote-smart.org

Your contention seems to be that ONLY abortion determines whether one is moderate, yet clearly this is not so.

No, I did not say this. The MSM knows Howard Dean is not a moderate. Hitler is not a moderate, he was for the abortion of unwanted children. There are many “pro-choice” people who are labeled liberal/progressive by the MSM.

Look at Gordon Smith (OR), who in the citation I provided is a “moderate” in reference to Medicaid spending.

If Gordon Smith ever began advocating the end to abortion now on public television, the MSM will brand him a conservative.

Once you are seen as a threat to Roe v. Wade, you are labeled a conservative.

So, some moderates are pro-life. Some moderates are pro-choice.

Most moderates are pro-choice and if you are picked up on the radar screen as being “anti-choice”/“anti-reproductive health”, for the most part - you lose that status.

Look at John McCain, in my citation called a moderate in reference to his stance on the filibuster.

McCain is mixed choice by his voting record and words. If you ask him whether it is his goal to overturn Roe v. Wade by approving pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, he definitely will not answer yes. He’ll come up with a long answer evading the question. Pro-lifers and other conservatives were considering a re-call vote in Arizona for McCain to get him out of office. If I am not mistaken, his favorite Supreme Court justice is a pro-choice justice.

To be moderate, you should believe women have a right to determine what happens to their body. Women shouldn’t be forced to be pregnant. If some women wants to terminate their pregnancy, nobody is to stand in her way. That is her right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Women have fought hard to be free and now a minority wants to return to the days when women had little rights concerning their future. The 1960s and the 1970s saw great advances in the rights of women and African-Americans, how dare anyone consider taking those rights away (the left sees abortion rights in the same level as civil rights).

In general, anyone who says otherwise is not a moderate by the standards of the MSM.

 

[miguel]

quote=Steve Andersen If we are at “war” then it is not a war like any the Geneva conventions were designed to deal with. Congress never declared a war.
[/quote]

What about the post from estesbob? Don’t misunderstand me Steve. I’m not here to defend the war in Iraq. I’m just acknowledging we’re in one.
Steve Andersen:

There is no belligerent government. There is no chance of prisoner exchange or release through a conclusion of hostilities.

How do you know that?

quote=Steve Andersen The folks who did the hijackings are criminals. To call them prisoners of war is a slap in the face to every real soldier on the planet.
[/quote]

However you want to split hairs, these guys were foreign nationals, Taliban supported. They committed an act of war on US soil. And the US government treated it that way. And rightfully so in my opinion. Otherwise you send the message to all these countries that they can attack us like this with impunity.

(Besides, it is conceding the political point to them and admitting that they are fighting for some sort of legitimate cause. Remember, for instance, during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland when the IRA members would refer to themselves as POWs and claim that the civil authorities had no right to try them? While they made other mistakes, the British never conceded that point. The US on the other hand conceded almost from day 1. What were we thinking? These aren’t soldiers, they’re thugs.)

(You kind of touched on one of my favorite subjects here. Before Michael Collins got to the negotiating table with Winston Churchill, the British government treated the Irish as insurrectionists (i.e., criminals). Michael Collins had been on their most wanted list. But the Irish revolutionaries saw themselves as being in a state of war against alien invaders. The existence of the Republic of Ireland legitimized their cause. The same could be said about the American revolution. No legitimate government ever acknowledges the aspirations of revolutionaries (or any other enemies), until they win. Then they don’t have much choice.) But generally speaking, I don’t see how locking up enemy combatants is ever viewed as giving political legitimacy to the cause of the enemy. That doesn’t make any sense. If they were worried about that, they wouldn’t lock anyone up. It’s done to protect our guys, period.

quote=Steve Andersen even during a war, combatants out of uniform and/or without anything identifying them as soldiers are treated as spies or saboteurs and are then subject to the nation’s regular criminal proceedings which gets back to my contention that our own law does not allow us to hold people indefinitely without charging them.
[/quote]

You are talking guerilla fighters. I agree that different rules apply to them than to combatants in uniform. In a war situation, like Iraq, with “civilians” driving up to our convoys in car bombs, I highly doubt that if any of these folks are captured, we’ll be sending them back to America for trial in our courts. If you are fighting in uniform, we are legally required to treat you according to our treaty commitments. If you are out of uniform, we don’t have commitments and I can kind of understand why. Anyway that’s my understanding. If you want to argue that we should, that’s another issue.

 

[miguel]

Steve Andersen:

It is relevant because
(1) POWs are entitled by treaty to communicate with the outside through some neutral 3rd party like the ICRC. (Even the Nazis allowed that)

There are POWs and there are POWs. I don’t think our treaty commitments cover combatants captured out of uniform.

quote=Steve Andersen POWs shouldn’t be tortured, period. Now I of course realize that wetting you pants is an order of magnitude away from bamboo under the fingernails but we, the Good Guys, aren’t supposed to do that.
[/quote]

Agreed.

quote=Steve Andersen POWs know that they can be exchanged at some point or let free when the combat ends……this thing is gong to go on for decades. Those people are in legal limbo with no conceivable out.
[/quote]

I don’t know…decades? I doubt we’ll put up with this war for much longer. How do you know that once hostilities cease, their status won’t change? I think all any of us can do is wait and see. Right now, our troops are safer with them locked up.
Steve Andersen:

When did “main stream” become a pejorative?

Sorry. It’s so much easier than saying “liberal dominated media” followed by a list of the usual suspects: Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post…

 

[Philip_P]

I’m not as willing to concede the plain English definition of words like moderate as you apparently are, but enough bandying semantics. Let’s shoot to the crux of what I’m taking issue with here. First, my original comment about moderates was not related to abortion, at all. It was in relation to the parties across the board, and specifically to the degree of partisan rhetoric that sees those with different viewpoints as enemies to be destroyed rather than partners in dialog. Both sides share the blame.

I don’t support abortion. One can have a preference for a governing philosophy (broadly “liberal” or “conservative’) without agreeing 100% with the leading policy proposals of the equivalent party. I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and I believe mistreatment of prisoners to be immoral. None of this takes away from my disapproval of abortion (in fact, both positions come from the same base). My problem with this whole claim that “moderate is code word for pro-choice” is that what it attempts to do is make a tie between supporting the administration’s actions in relation to Iraq and prisoners and opposing abortion. This is unreasonable.

“Moderate” in my usage, (which since I used it is relevant to this thread), means reasonable human beings, who can disagree on specific policies but can share similar values. I don’t expect you, or even necessarily want you, to start voting Democrat. I don’t believe in single party rule. What I DO expect is for people to evaluate policies against moral, not partisan, criteria. Claims such as “moderate is code for pro-choice” are really an attempt to argue for blind allegiance to a specific party – i.e. you cannot criticize the Republicans if you oppose abortion. A moderate rejects such thinking.

So let me rephrase my original comment without the use of the [surprisingly] problematic term “moderate.” Those on both sides of the ideological divide who seek only to crush and destroy their political opponents threaten the rest of us who actually care about the well-being of the nation as a whole.

Of course, not as much fun to say as “frothing, raving lunatics,” but slightly more accurate.

 

[thestickman]

” Those on both sides of the ideological divide who seek only to crush and destroy their political opponents threaten the rest of us who actually care about the well-being of the nation as a whole.

Hmmm, I don’t think so. I believe liberalism, as practiced in the USA, is intrinsically evil, anti-Catholic and certainly a drain morally and otherwise on the well-being of the country as a whole. I sincerely believe crushing liberalism (which means defeating liberals running for office) at the polls is in the best interest of the nation.

 

[Jay74]

thestickman:

I sincerely believe crushing liberalism (which means defeating liberals running for office) at the polls is in the best interest of the nation.

I agree. I also think that most people who call themselves liberal are decent, and don’t hold most contemporary liberal positions. I believe they may be single issue voters, or vote for a handful of issues, and inadvertantly end up promoting an overall agenda contradictory to their values.

My grandmother thought Bill Clinton was a great president, and loathed President Bush when he took office in 2001. She had been voting democratic since WWII, and voted for a republican the last time when Kennedy was president. She basically, had been voting for FDR the last 60 years, and Kennedy the last 40, even though most of their positions she liked had been abandoned by the modern democratic party. She feared Bush was going to take away social security (as Gore said), and feared after 9/11 that he wasn’t smart enough to handle it. 9/11, however, caused her to tune into politics more than she had in decades. She had many disagreements with President Bush last year, but she ended up shocking us all by voting for him. When we asked her why, she said that the more she listened to people like John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, etc., and the way she said Ed Koch (who she long liked) and Zel Miller jump ship made her realize that the Democratic Party no longer stood for the things that had brought her on board so many years ago.

Many blacks vote democratic because of affirmative action, and they perceive the democrats as being the party of civil rights. However, most blacks are fairly conservative, religious, oppose gay marriage, etc.

Many jews vote democratic because they fear anything labeled right wing, since the Nazi’s are considered far right (I won’t argue the falsity of this perception, that it is the perception is the fact). They also fear christianity, which is sad since conservative christians are the jews best friends.

Many elderly, like my grandmother, voted democratic for years, because of things like social security, and memories of FDR and JFK. The fact that the democratic party no longer supports their values is overlooked.

That’s not to say that the democratic party as a whole is useless. There are many beautiful democrats, and many pathetic republicans.

Frankly, the way the Republican Party is going, I could see myself jumping ship some day. But the GOP isn’t a church, and it is the only realistic alternative to the Democratic Party–the party that sanctions murder of the unborn, banning God from public, redefinition of marriage, and many other things that are destroying society. In its current incarnation, the Democratic Party should not be entrusted with power.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

I’m not as willing to concede the plain English definition of words like moderate as you apparently are, but enough bandying semantics.

I know what the word means. I know you know what it means. I also know how the media often uses the word. And the way they use it relative to abortion does not demonstrate to me that they know what it means.
Philip P:

Let’s shoot to the crux of what I’m taking issue with here. First, my original comment about moderates was not related to abortion, at all. It was in relation to the parties across the board, and specifically to the degree of partisan rhetoric that sees those with different viewpoints as enemies to be destroyed rather than partners in dialog. Both sides share the blame.

I understand that. But like it or not, the word you used, “moderate”, is part of this partisan rhetoric. And specifically, liberals are the ones misusing it. Rhetorically in general, if one is not labeled a moderate, the implication is that one is an extremist. I agree that this kind of rhetoric is not helpful for dialog. For this reason, I personally avoid the word. It’s too bad because it has its uses.
Philip P:

…My problem with this whole claim that “moderate is code word for pro-choice” is that what it attempts to do is make a tie between supporting the administration’s actions in relation to Iraq and prisoners and opposing abortion. This is unreasonable.

I really don’t get your point here. I wasn’t trying to tie in any other issue. I don’t see opposing abortion as moderate. I see it as a moral duty. But I do see protecting abortion as extreme.

I’m heading off to Church at the moment. I’ll get back to the rest of your points later.

 

[Stu]

Fitz:

If you are a liberal you would not notice the bias. That is the point. If you are a conservative you pick up on the bias in: choice of topic, what is emphasized, what is left out, and the choice of words used. You must know this. You certainly seem to recongnize conservative bias when you hear it.

You have to understand that the liberals are finding themselves in an unfamiliar position. For so long they were surrounded only by a liberal leaning media and thus aren’t always able to detect such biases. Now that there is at least one outlet, which I will admit for argument’s sake has a conservative tilt, there is hope for them to develop this atrophied ability. But then again they sitll have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN to watch.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip in all fairness, while some wonk might call Senator Smith a moderate, he is not. He is quite conservative on virtually all issues. His support for Medicaid funding was applauded even by those who do not favor bigger government as it is a protection of the most weak in our society. Further as we have learned in Oregon (Smith is our senator) when you cut funding to certain programs it costs more in the long run. Senator Smith noted that when meds were cut in our state budget many people became far more ill and cost far more money, something conservatives like to avoid.

“Moderate” is a euphamism for liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal and military matters. That does not describe Senator Smith, but it does describe a Schwartzenegger or a Guiliani

Lisa N

 

[miguel]

“Moderate” in my usage, (which since I used it is relevant to this thread), means reasonable human beings, who can disagree on specific policies but can share similar values. I don’t expect you, or even necessarily want you, to start voting Democrat. I don’t believe in single party rule. What I DO expect is for people to evaluate policies against moral, not partisan, criteria.

Fine. But you can’t assume everyone’s usage is the same as yours. It isn’t.
Philip P:

Claims such as “moderate is code for pro-choice” are really an attempt to argue for blind allegiance to a specific party – i.e. you cannot criticize the Republicans if you oppose abortion. A moderate rejects such thinking.

No. My claim is an observable fact. I provided a typical example which you still haven’t acknowledged. I’ve been listening to liberals use the word moderate rhetorically for a long time. And I’m not alone. How this simple observation gets interpreted as “an attempt to argue for blind allegiance to a specific party” is beyond me. Seriously, it borders on the paranoid.
Philip P:

So let me rephrase my original comment without the use of the [surprisingly] problematic term “moderate.”

Now we’re getting somewhere (surprisingly ).
Philip P:

Those on both sides of the ideological divide who seek only to crush and destroy their political opponents threaten the rest of us who actually care about the well-being of the nation as a whole.

I don’t disagree.
Philip P:

Of course, not as much fun to say as “frothing, raving lunatics,” but slightly more accurate.

I may be a lunatic but I never froth and rave.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Philip P:

I suppose that would depend on what you define as “solidly 100% pro-life.” Personally, I would go with Cardinal Bernardin’s criteria of a Consistent Ethic of Life, and would have to conclude that there is no such thing as a “100% pro-life” person. Rather, pro-life is the goal we are working toward, rather than a litmus test which lets us off the hook by excusing us from giving serious consideration to the full spectrum of Catholic teaching.

Even if we narrow “pro-life” to “anti-abortion,” (a MAJOR undercutting of the entire concept of prolife, but for arguments sake…). What is pro-life? Someone who spews absolutist rhetoric with no chance of being translated into effective legislation, and so picks up votes with no obligation to deliver? Or is it someone who wants to reduce abortion wherever and however possible, willing to work through the democratic process, but never losing sight of the ideal and final goal?

The anti-abortionists who bomb clinics have certainly not helped the anti-abortion cause in the UK - their activities have been the ideal reason for pro-lifers here to have their arguments ignored; after all, who wants to associate with people who use violence against what they object to as violent ? Anti-abortion violence simply looks hypocritical ​

Besides, I don’t like the way in which abortion, dreadful though it is, seems to have become the sin par excellence which defines Catholics: there is a great deal more to Catholicism than opposing abortion, and other sins that are no better.

Those who use violence, do things which have effects they seem not to consider. ##

 

[Lurch104]

Richardols:

NPR is very good radio. I find no bias in the news reporting, and they cover a lot of things in depth.

What a joke. I sometimes listen on my way to work in the morning. Take “Marketplace Morning Report” for example, Robert Reich and Alan Sloan?!? They are pretty much socialists reporting on our markets.

 

[Lurch104]

Philip P:

For 18 - 24 hours at a time or longer, in a crouching position?

yet the prisoners at Guantanamo do not even have the status of POWs. And when exactly is the end of the war? The war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war against anyone the administration deems suspicious? What assurances do we have that the miltary is being “careful in the investigation process?” None. Is this the way the beacon of freedom and democracy is supposed to operate, at the whim of men with guns? No.

And these sorts of conditions are ok with you? What about if you were arbitrarily thrown into a prison without ever being given a reason or a chance to defend yourself?

OK, your arguement has swayed my opinion. We should close GITMO and just shoot the terrorists on the battlefield when we encounter them. Works for me.

 

[Philip_P]

Miguel:

I know what the word means. I know you know what it means. I also know how the media often uses the word. And the way they use it relative to abortion does not demonstrate to me that they know what it means.

LisaN:

Philip in all fairness, while some wonk might call Senator Smith a moderate, he is not. He is quite conservative on virtually all issues. His support for Medicaid funding was applauded even by those who do not favor bigger government as it is a protection of the most weak in our society. Further as we have learned in Oregon (Smith is our senator) when you cut funding to certain programs it costs more in the long run. Senator Smith noted that when meds were cut in our state budget many people became far more ill and cost far more money, something conservatives like to avoid.

I’m tempted to simply let the issue drop, but language is important. To claim that something is code-word would mean that it reliably means or signals something. For instance, we would all agree that “pro-choice” is code-word for “keep unrestricted abortion legal.” This is not obvious or evident in the phrase – after all, taken on its literal meaning, pro-choice could just as easily mean funding sonograms at crisis pregnancy centers to help women make an informed decision and choose life. Yet this is not what “pro-choice” means. It’s a code.

The same cannot be said for “moderate.” First, moderate applies to a range of issue, not a single one such as abortion. One could also be “moderate” on one issue but not on another, or be seen as being moderate overall. Secondly, there are politicians who are described as moderate and yet who are not “pro-choice.” Lisa mentioned that Sen. Smith is not really a moderate. The label, though, was used by the Times, hardly “some wonk.” Also, the implication in Lisa’s comment is that one cannot be both a moderate and a conservative, which I disagree with, and which the reference to Sen. Smith as a moderate seems to argue against as well.

In other words, moderate cannot reliably be taken to mean pro-choice. If it is a code-word, it’s not a very good one.

 

[Philip_P]

Miguel:

I really don’t get your point here. I wasn’t trying to tie in any other issue. I don’t see opposing abortion as moderate. I see it as a moral duty. But I do see protecting abortion as extreme.

Yet here we are talking about abortion instead of torture. Intentional or not, the claim “moderate is code-word for pro-choice” has successfully sidetracked discussion. I see this frequently on these forums, and among Republican-voting Catholics in general. A non-Republican will criticize an action or proposal of the administration, and suddenly abortion is introduced into the debate. The result is that instead of discussing the specific issue at hand, what ends up happening is trying to “prove” whether Republicans or Democrats are better. It’s an easy trap to fall into (and I can’t claim to have successfully avoided it at all times myself), but the end result is that the original issue is completely ignored.

So let’s try this again. The thread began with a blogger essentially chiding Democrats for being “soft” on terror, citing recent statements by Durbin and Pelosi. To which I responded that I thought both sides were out of line – the conservatives for their outrage over Durbin’s comments, and the liberals for their outrage over Rove’s. I then followed up by trying to point out that there were substantial issue raised by Durbin about our treatment of prisoners that cannot be flippantly dismissed. As Catholics, as Americans, mistreatment of prisoners should concern us greatly. Surely this is neither “conservative” nor “liberal.” The rule of law must apply to all, or to none (cue that great quotation from Man for All Seasons…). The relevant questions should be 1)Are the claims of prisoner abuse true 2)If so, is this moral 3)If not, how do we remedy this situation.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

I’m tempted to simply let the issue drop, but language is important. To claim that something is code-word would mean that it reliably means or signals something. For instance, we would all agree that “pro-choice” is code-word for “keep unrestricted abortion legal.” This is not obvious or evident in the phrase – after all, taken on its literal meaning, pro-choice could just as easily mean funding sonograms at crisis pregnancy centers to help women make an informed decision and choose life. Yet this is not what “pro-choice” means. It’s a code.

The same cannot be said for “moderate.” First, moderate applies to a range of issue, not a single one such as abortion. One could also be “moderate” on one issue but not on another, or be seen as being moderate overall. Secondly, there are politicians who are described as moderate and yet who are not “pro-choice.” Lisa mentioned that Sen. Smith is not really a moderate. The label, though, was used by the Times, hardly “some wonk.” Also, the implication in Lisa’s comment is that one cannot be both a moderate and a conservative, which I disagree with, and which the reference to Sen. Smith as a moderate seems to argue against as well.

In other words, moderate cannot reliably be taken to mean pro-choice. If it is a code-word, it’s not a very good one.

The term moderate is vague, another reason I avoid it. See how much hot air has been expended trying to explain it? Choice is also used in education in the context of vouchers. Like any phrase, it depends on the context.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

Yet here we are talking about abortion instead of torture. Intentional or not, the claim “moderate is code-word for pro-choice” has successfully sidetracked discussion. I see this frequently on these forums, and among Republican-voting Catholics in general. A non-Republican will criticize an action or proposal of the administration, and suddenly abortion is introduced into the debate. The result is that instead of discussing the specific issue at hand, what ends up happening is trying to “prove” whether Republicans or Democrats are better. It’s an easy trap to fall into (and I can’t claim to have successfully avoided it at all times myself), but the end result is that the original issue is completely ignored.If you don’t want discussions to get sidetracked, don’t use loaded terms. And when someone points it out, don’t try to B.S. your way out of it. Alot of hot air gets waisted that way. BTW, abortion is the worst kind of torture. So when Democrats try to insinuate that Republicans are promoting it in one context, well, you know what they say about people in glass houses. Even Jesus told people to take the beam out of their own eye to see clearly enough to remove the speck from their neighbor’s. This is a good example of Democrat’s beam and Republican’s speck, IMO. You can’t blame people for getting defensive. If the Democrats own record was squeaky clean, there might be a little less rancor. That’s a big reason I left the party…no moral credibility.

Philip P:

So let’s try this again. The thread began with a blogger essentially chiding Democrats for being “soft” on terror, citing recent statements by Durbin and Pelosi. To which I responded that I thought both sides were out of line – the conservatives for their outrage over Durbin’s comments, …

…to which I responded that the outrage was perfectly justified. If he wants to criticize Bush’s POW policies, fine. Stick to the subject. Don’t compare them to mass murdering Nazis and Communists. He just showed his ignorance when he did that.
Philip P:

and the liberals for their outrage over Rove’s.

…seemed kind of manufactured to me.
Philip P:

I then followed up by trying to point out that there were substantial issue raised by Durbin about our treatment of prisoners that cannot be flippantly dismissed. As Catholics, as Americans, mistreatment of prisoners should concern us greatly. Surely this is neither “conservative” nor “liberal.” The rule of law must apply to all, or to none (cue that great quotation from Man for All Seasons…). The relevant questions should be 1)Are the claims of prisoner abuse true 2)If so, is this moral 3)If not, how do we remedy this situation.

I don’t disagree. But you must understand that when a conservative hears a liberal talking that way, the words sound hollow. Equal protection under the law must apply to the unborn as well. And this is a beam issue for Democrats.

 

[miguel]

Very well put. Your grandma sounds like my mom. Are we related?

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

If you don’t want discussions to get sidetracked, don’t use loaded terms. And when someone points it out, don’t try to B.S. your way out of it.

I honestly didn’t expect, and still am not convinced, that “moderate” is a loaded term. However, when in future discussions directly with you I’ll try to find more “neutral” language

If he wants to criticize Bush’s POW policies, fine. Stick to the subject. Don’t compare them to mass murdering Nazis and Communists. He just showed his ignorance when he did that.

Durbin should have been more careful - it’s generally best to avoid mentioning Nazi unless you are literally talking about Nazis. However, more important than his rhetorical slip-up is the substance of the accusation. Are we mistreating prisoners, and if so how do we remedy this situation?

I don’t disagree. But you must understand that when a conservative hears a liberal talking that way, the words sound hollow. Equal protection under the law must apply to the unborn as well. And this is a beam issue for Democrats.

It shouldn’t matter whether a Republican or Democrat or other makes the point. It’s only a partisan issue in so far as that the president is commander-in-chief, and so has final responsiblity over the actions of the miltary. I expect him to put an end to prisoner abuse not because he’s a Republican, but because he’s the president. Being against abortion does not give him license to violate other moral imperatives, nor excuse him from failing to fulfill his responsibilities.