Are we all "Dixie Chicks" now? And where are those "moderate" Republicans?

I've quoted the following two remarks in the last few days:

House Republican Conference Chair, Deborah Pryce of Ohio:

You know, this is probably as relevant to people's lives now as any other time because of what's going on with Democrats putting everybody in the world before our soldiers and the American safety. They're so worried about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. And the flag has a place in that debate. (Into the Mix: A Ban on Flag Desecration by Mike Allen Washington Post 06/22/05)

Republican Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana:

Hostettler ... asserted that "the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives" and "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats."

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said. (GOP Congressman Calls Democrats Anti-Christian by Mike Allen Washington Post 06/21/05)

And here are a couple, via Atrios, that I haven't quoted yet.

This is from distinguished FOX commentator Bill O'Reilley:

And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network [Air America], we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less. (O'Reilly: FBI should arrest the "clowns" at Air America Radio for being traitors, Media Matters for America 06/22/05)

And "Bush's brain" Karl Rove really attracted some attention with this one: Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11 by Patrick Healy New York Times 06/23/05.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Speaking of Dick Durbin's Senate criticism of criminal torture, Rove said:

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Atrios' pithy comment on the latter was, "But, this is the new strategy on Iraq: blame the critics. We're all Dixie Chicks now."

The Democrats quickly started calling on Rove to "apologize or resign." I think that's the wrong approach. They should demand that he resign, period.

But what I'm wondering is, where are all those "moderate" Republicans our press corps loves to praise?  You know, McCain, Lugar, Hagel.  That "straight-talking maverick" McCain was in our faces the last few days blasting Sen. Durbin for daring to criticize sadistic, criminal torture being conducted by the US government.

But where are these fine Republicans "moderates" when it comes to dealing with this kind of eliminationist rhetoric among leaders and prominent publicists of their own party?

The Republicans "moderates" have lately been making me think often of a scene from Herman Melville's The Confidence-Man (1857).  The story takes  place on a riverboat travelling down the Mississippi.  As they reach the point where they are leaving free territory and entering the slave states, a conversation takes place between a rough Missourian and a herb-doctor peddling his special alternative medicines.  The herb-doctor asks him, "Philanthropic scruples, doubtless, forbid your goin as far as New Orleans for slaves?"

"Slaves?" [replies the Missourian] morose again in a twinkling, "won't have 'em! Bad enough to see whites ducking and grinning round for a favor, without having those poor devils of niggers congeeing round for their corn. Though, to me, the niggers are the freer of the two. You are an abolitionist, ain't you?" he added, squaring himself with both hands on his rifle, used for a staff, and gazing in the herb-doctor's face with no more reverence than if it were a target. "You are an abolitionist, ain't you?"

"As to that, I cannot so readily answer [says the herb-doctor]. If by abolitionist you mean a zealot, I am none; but if you mean a man, who. being a man, feels for all men, slaves included, and by any lawful act, opposed to nobody's interest, and therefore, rousing nobody's enmity, would willingly abolish suffering (supposing it, in its degree, to exist) from among mankind, irrespective of color, then am I what you say."

"Picked and prudent sentiments. You are the moderate man, the invaluable understrapper of the wicked man. You, the moderate man, may be used for wrong, but are useless for right."

And that's how the Republican "moderates" have performed lately: on the Iraq War, on torture in the Bush Gulag, on the radical eliminationist bile spewing from their party worthies as quoted above.  And doesn't that perfectly describe the role we've seen that famous Maverick McCain play over the last few days: You, the moderate man, may be used for wrong, but are useless for right?