Truth truth, not “political truth.” I have no use for that. I will not build a case based on a Liberal “political truth” any more than I will accept a Conservative “political truth” as refutation (or is it refutal?) of same case.

Objective truth isn’t debatable. But rather the conclusions we draw from it.

But the goal of understanding the other position isn’t always conducive to an understanding of the truth of the matter. And the quest for truth often requires you to ride roughshod over your opponent’s easy assumptions � and your own.

We need to make sure this doesn’t turn into an echo chamber, and so far I feel the debate is healthy and balanced, unlike places like Daily Kos and LGF.

One of the challenges of “Centrist” is that it can embody two conflicting concepts, as Montag shows here:

Rather than strive toward a “centrist� position, I’d hoped to “find the common ground� from which to discuss the issues of politics in a civil way; where the goal of argument is not victory, but better understanding. To participate in a conversation where both sides are more interested in the truth than in rhetorical victory for their own view; and the goal is for each to better understand and respect the others’ view.

But the goal of understanding the other position isn’t always conducive to an understanding of the truth of the matter. And the quest for truth often requires you to ride roughshod over your opponent’s easy assumptions — and your own.

The reason for a centrist blog is not to agree on every issue. In fact, I think you and Callimachus are much less centrist than Michael, myself and Cicero. And J. Thomas Duffy, well, he’s just going to make fun of anybody he can.

But I think you’re right when you say a centrist is somebody who looks beyond the talking points and marketing. Seperating the wheat from the chaff.

However, I also think how people define “centrist” varies quite a bit. So let’s see what shakes out on this blog and go from there.