The P-G printed a piece by Boston Globe columnist Farah Stockman that is a classic example of "both sides do it-ism." The gist of the essay is that extremists go after the moderates first, and she cites cites the Rwandan genocide, Tamil Tiger assassinations, Northern Ireland, the Ukraine and Syria.
While I think the issues are far more complex than extremists targeting moderates (I posit extremists target anyone who doesn't conform to their views), what burns me is the following:
Even here in the United States, partisan wrangling has turned "moderate" into a dirty name for an endangered species. In red states, moderate Republicans get picked off by the Tea Party. In blue states, they get trounced by the likes of Elizabeth Warren."
You have GOT to be kidding me. The Republicans destroyed their moderate wing 30 years ago. There might be one or two "moderate" Republicans in the Senate, and none in the House. Warren is certainly liberal, but she ran unopposed in the primary, and soundly defeated Republican Scott Brown. No "moderate" was trounced by Warren, and "by the likes of" is unnecessarily pejorative, unless of course, you have to maintain the "both sides do it" nonsense. Most elected Democrats hew pretty close to the center, and are only considered "left" because the Republican party has gone bat-shit insane.
Republicans being "picked off by the Tea Party" aren't moderates. They just aren't crazy enough for what's become the base of the party.