Except, as noted above, Roe fits in rather easily with already enumerated rights in the Constitution, which supercedes any state decalarations on same. Sorry, the illegit label on Roe is a losing tack for the Right, just as the screeching Left's anti-Gun BS is for them.

Both Right & Left have to deal with the fact that the Constitution allows bodily sovereignty, and the right to defend such w arms. Pretty moderate, I'd say.

But background checks could deny an ex-con, who has been rehabilitated, and still lives in a crime-ridden area, the right to preserve his or his family's safety. It's still a restriction, therefore not moderate. And, if the nation wants such, and we do away with the 2nd Amend, so be it. I've never owned a gun. But, either you're prego or not, you support the defined right to possess firearms or not.

'The reason the Left is so intent on opposing the Right on this issue is because they consider it a “stealth issue” to ban all abortions, that once this is banned, extremists on the Right will try to push further and use precedent.'

Yes, and history, and the very claims of the far right show this is so, but the Left, and indeed, all Constitutionalists (the same who should be in solidarity with the 2nd Amend types) DO support abortion because it is basic to personal sovereignty, as well as the realpolitik reason you mention.

'But thing that don't have greys tend to be about principle rather than pragmatism; in either case pragmatism and principle have to support each other, otherwise either are useless.'

Depends- see The US Civil War. hardly a pragmatic solution to a problem that was economic. But, once it becomes principled in its stand, pragmatism be damned.

'I don't know what other issues you want to raise, but I'm sure you realize that the whole issue of what makes a “person” was discussed in Roe v Wade, and the issue for the judges was viability, if the fetus was developed enough and could survive outside the womb.'

Re: Roe, it's a good example of science passing the issue by because in a decade or so wombs may become obsolete, so the issue then turns on does an individual have sovereignty over genetic destiny. If a man and woman copulate, she gets pregnant and wants to abort, ok, but does the man then have the right to put the fetus in an artificial womb and raise it on his own, against the mom's objections? Or do both have to sign off on the fetus reaching birth? The fetus's 'rights' are nonexistent, so the battle becomes over whether or not viability means at conception or not. Is every unfertlized egg a death? Is masturbation mass murder? These seem sill, and are, but there are people who raise silly points to try to make slightly less silly points seem reasonable. You've mentioned one such Right Wing tack- the Silent Scream was another.

'Also the courts have made numerous judgments on the 2nd amendment. Even if you take your interpretation of what it means, in regards, to 'anyone who would be called into military service' you can exclude the insane and felons legally. The court also ruled the freedom specifically refers to carrying arms that would be suitable for a soldier or militia member''

I agree that the insane, felons, the infirm, minors, etc. are and can be excluded, but few argue for their being armed. As for what arms are included, well here is where the Constitution is so wonderfully vague. AK47s were not around in the 18th C. nor many other nasty arms. But, sense dictates you work with what is there, and go by the dictum, I believe stated within, 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I.e.- when telecommunications came along an existing framework existed which led to the denial of legal wiretapping sans specific cause and a judge's order.

I'm not a reader of Krugman, but when you type: 'moderate means, taking people with opposing opinions both seriously and trying to arrive at some common ground which takes care of both of their concerns….You don't take a side seriously by belittling all their concerns, and that fits Krugman.' you negate your own words.

See Damozel's 'But I repeat: quoting him in support of one point doesn't necessarily represent a blanket endorsement of everything he stands for. To me, being a moderate means being able and willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. Isn't it possible to disagree with someone on some points and agree with them on others?'

That is an understatement.

“Isn't it possible to disagree with someone on some points and agree with them on others?”

Yes. Even Bill Clinton has been correct and told the truth once in a while. And no, George Bush is not responsible for everything that goes bad everywhere in this world. If Krugman ever says something correct I'll notice it (though I'm not obliged to note it).

* * *

“The reason the Left is so intent on opposing the Right on this issue is because they consider it a 'stealth issue' to ban all abortions”

Of course, and in addition they grip with white knuckles the illegitimate Roe v. Wade ruling because if the Constitution were followed, abortion would correctly be left to the state and local governments and the people in them to regulate as they see fit, and that might result in the horrifying condition of being told the word “no.”

You don't take a side seriously by belittling all their concerns, and that fits Krugman.

DLS, Krugman is certainly a progressive and a partisan. I know some very intelligent people (whose opinions I have grounds to respect) who consider him quite trustworthy.

But I repeat: quoting him in support of one point doesn't necessarily represent a blanket endorsement of everything he stands for. To me, being a moderate means being able and willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. Isn't it possible to disagree with someone on some points and agree with them on others?

Its also not relevant if the term 'partial birth abortion' has to do with science or politics. The point is you can be for restrictions on late term abortions, or specific abortion procedures. The reason the Left is so intent on opposing the Right on this issue is because they consider it a “stealth issue” to ban all abortions, that once this is banned, extremists on the Right will try to push further and use precedent.

I stated that in different words.

'But, I think if you take this issue, for instance, Republicans, in pushing to ban partial birth abortions, and asking for laws that require parental notification in most cases, have been appealing more to the center than Democrats.'

Well, not if you really understand the science off abortion and the medical terminology. Ex- 'Partial Birth Abortion' is an ad hoc term made up by anti-abs that has no medical validity and is logically false. Since all abortions are done vaginally, as ex, all abortions are, technically, partial birth. The real term is D&C, Dilation and Curetage.

So, right away, the Right is blatantly distorting and lying about the issue. That's hardly a moderate thing to do.

I disagree that you can be moderate on every issue. Ex- The 2nd Amendment. I've read it and it clearly allows gun ownership for everyone part of the militia- i.e- anyone in the military, Selective Service, or able to be called up to defend the country, part of the 'well-regulated militia.' I.e.- almost all adults. So, there is no moderation on the issue. You either are pro or con. To be honest, however, one shd seek to overturn the amendment with another amendment, because the issue is clear as a bell.

Abortion, however, is not mentioned, although it can be seen as being under the 13th & 14th Amendments which basically granted sovereignty of the self and the body to all human beings (as a fetus is a clump of cells, scientifically), under the pursuit of happiness, etc., and even as a basic right of self-preservation.

In both cases there really is not a 'moderate' position, you either believe in the right to armed self-defense sans government intervention and the right to be sovereign over one's body, or you do not.

However, the fact that one can recognize that not all things have grays, is itself a gray area.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8025805

theres a difference between a moderation in being eclectic on policies, and moderation a single issue. for instance, most americans believe that later term abortions should have more restrictions and partial birth abortions banned, but early term abortions be allowed freely. Also that abortions should generally require parental notification. Its a position allowed by Roe v Wade, although court decisions and policies since Roe v Wade have been more liberal. Adding to that there are always legitimate questions of whether the court overstepped its authority.

Its really the fact that each respective party has its hip tied to more extreme elements that sometimes bring rhetoric away from the center. But, I think if you take this issue, for instance, Republicans, in pushing to ban partial birth abortions, and asking for laws that require parental notification in most cases, have been appealing more to the center than Democrats. Which is I think, one of the reasons Republicans had been winning for a long time, because they staked out appeals to the center.

I think both Clinton and Bush have put forth policies aimed at the center, although both had been divisive and failed to accomplish what they wanted adn failed to reach the center on real terms.

I think if you take all of the political issues together, you can come to a platform which is moderate on every issue.

However, a thing that is often lost with the idea(l) of moderation is that all opinions will be centrist. I am pro-abortion but anti-gun control. I am pro gay marriage but pro-small (or technically, efficient) government. I am a social liberal but true fiscal conservative (unlike Bush & Reagan).

I dislike Hillary and W, but think neither is evil- just a hack and a dumb ass. Cheney, however….EVIL!

Tax cuts can be good, if given to the poor. Money always seeps upward, as if via tree roots. Trickle down proved that money watered up top never rolls down hill. A rising tide swamps the poor, it does not raise them.

Government regulation is good and often necessary although government spending (earmarks and pork barrel) is often wasteful and disgraceful.

The Republicans, of recent years, have embraced some downright evil ideas and policies, but the Democrats have offered NOTHING. They are wholly void, so the reason the country is in a mess lies with the electorate that keeps vacillating between wickedry and nihility.

There are some policies that are bad because of their excesses, but others are bad because they are fundamentally bad, period.

yes thats all true, but Obama did reference that he thought Republicans did respond to liberal excess and were the party of ideas.

i don't think you have to agree with Reagan or the Republican party, to give some credit to their criticisms of liberal policy at the time or some credit to their own proposals. The idea that sometimes tax cuts help the economy is a valid point. If some modern republicans have gone too far with it and think its the only sound policy, thats their excess.

But Democrats are not going to be centrists by going back pre-Reagan and denying that anything good , or lasting, came out of Republican politics.

I think Bill and Hillary Clinton had to come to grips with this when they were in the white house, but, there is also too much pandering to the idea that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. Its politics and spin for you. Though something Clinton himself perfected.

Polimom and Redfish: I intended my comment about Obama to be tongue in cheek. I see it didn't come off.

As for Krugman being at war with Obama, this may well be true. I don't go to Paul Krugman for my opinions.

Redfish: I don't pretend to be a “centrist” and in fact am not even sure what this means. But it is certainly the case that SOME REPUBLICANS have successfully framed the Reagan narrative, as can be seen by his frequently being cited by the various candidates as a role model. He is the hero of many Republicans I know.

If we have to have labels, I am currently a moderate Democrat who believes that the goal of political dialogue includes hearing from people of diverse views. At another time in my life (during the Carter years) I was a Republican, though I drew the line at Reagan. I'm a moderate because I'm willing to hear from people who hold positions other than my own and to make adjustments in my own opinions. Finally, I'm a moderate because I value consensus, bipartisanship, and the decencies of political discourse.

I put my opinion about Reagan out there because I'm concerned at the way he's being reframed as the Exemplary Republican.

Crae: I'm not trying to “spin” anything. I was around during the Reagan years, and everything that went along with them, and regard it as a bad time for Americans. I am glad you feel good when you think about Reagan. I feel quite differently. I voted for Ford, but I knew from the start Reagan was a bridge too far for me.

But honestly, I'm very sorry NOW for tweaking Obama…though I still say that he brought it on himself….

btw, free trade policies began in the 70s , before reagan, and a big bloc of the republican party was always against free trade. NAFTA isn't a democrat-republican issue , it represents another political divide, that cuts across party lines, and isn't formally recognized. people who jump in with the democrats by assuming republicans are pro-rich , and democrats are pro-poor, are , i think you will see, just buying the democratic party line on it.

This is why Hillary is really a DINO- she's a corporatist, and that's why an Edwards, or failing him, Obama, is needed.