It all depends on how an individual feels about the status quo.

A. You can be moderate because you believe moderate actions will bring about radical change, or

B. You can be a moderate because you believe things are good to some degree as they are, and any actions should result in moderate changes.

I'm inclined to believe the calls to moderate discourse come from the latter group. "Rational discourse" stands in opposition to "irrational discourse", with implied irrational demands.

In other words, if you can't see why group X would want something, you won't see anything group X does to get that as rational.

I agree and would point out that my comment does not contradict yours. Respectful and rational discourse doesn’t mean to sit idle while your talked over, rather it means you respect your enemies strengths and rationalize their weaknesses in order to take a position which best supports your cause.

What do you mean 'rationalize their weaknesses'? I ask because it sounds like you're propounding a 'lose-lose' strategy.