A lot of people are pointing to Donklephant from posts or blogrolls and we sincerely appreciate it.

From the referral logs:
Vodka Pundit
Justin Delbar’s Digital Dissent
Exit Zero
Nothing Aside

And of course,

Thanks again Glenn!

UPDATE: 9:51 p.m. CMT
Some more I neglected. Also note I changed the link from “Centrist Coalition” to “Centerfield.” Sorry about that error folks.

Impacted Wisdom Truth
Sound Of The Mushroom
Peak Talk
The Common Virtue
South Park Pundit (It’s Donklephant, timmy!)
And this very unflattering screed from TBogg.

Some have wondered why I’m linking to blogs that attack us, call us names, etc. Well, I don’t expect a bunch of people to suddenly understand what we’re trying to do here. But I think a few will start to and the more people we invite under the tent of cooperation, the better off I think we’ll be.

Then again, maybe I’m unbelievably naive.

Only time will tell.

UPDATE: 11:05 p.m. CMT
And one more from the comment’s section. This is a really great post on trying to find the middle. And although I don’t agree with everything “goy” says, you should definitely check it out.

A Goy And His Blog

UPDATE: 11:05:45 p.m. CMT
And how could I forget the folks over at Winds Of Change? Doh!

Winds Of Change

  • You are far too nice to return a link to Alicublog with a thank you. But I guess if somebody around here is going to be the good cop, it ain’t gonna be me.

  • Cool site. Just added you to my blogroll. My several dozen readers will soon be yours.

    Michael Reynolds

  • Well, not everybody over at alicu was a prat. There were a few in the comment sections who gave us the benefit of the doubt. However, this is about bringing people together so this is an experiment to see if they perhaps will join the conversation and add a few more reasoned voices to the growing number around here.

    And yes, I’ll play good cop. You can be bad cop. 😉

  • Oh, thanks for the mention. I’ll put it in the post.

  • Can I be the psychotic cop?

  • No. 😉

  • No. 😉

  • That last no was obviously not a reaffirmation.

  • HA

    The concept behind this blog is flawed. It is based on the “middle ground” logical fallacy.

    From my perspective, I see a few former lefties bragging about their Democratic bona fides while painfully and slowly coming to terms with the insanity and incoherence of the left, and a few RINO libertarian types who want to distance themselves from the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson types in the Republican tent. And both “wings” will be pumping themselves full of self-praise by flaunting their superiority to their former ideological/partisan comrades through excessive hand-wringing. Yawn.

    On some issues, there is no middle ground. And attempts to find it are nothing more than fruitless efforts in self-gratification.

  • goy

    Thanks for the kind words Justin. Much appreciated.

    “HA”, I submit that you may have missed the point here, and my read is that it’s because you may have over-generalized. The “left” is not all insane and incoherent. And most Republicans – certainly most conservatives – have already distanced themselves from the Falwell-Robertson stereotypes you mention. And I think you may be misreading the joy of finding kindred spirits who offer the potential for thoughtful (as opposed to sarcastic, irrational, hyperbolic, irascible) discourse even though our opinions may differ: that’s not self-praise or flaunting superiority, it’s relief and, in my case anyway, renewed interest in The Discussion.

    I also submit that your claim of argumentum ad temperantiam may be misapplied here. The fallacy to which you refer requires that one of two opposing views be *correct* in order for their “middle ground” to be incorrect (by definition). You’d be right if we were arguing the merits of “2+2=4” vs. “2+2=6”, but we’re not. And IMHO, a significant source of unnecessary conflict is the blind inclination to over-generalize and over-simplify the issues of human interation into two opposing views. In other words, the “either/or” situation required for your fallacy doesn’t necessarily hold here, and in asserting that it does, you may be treading on one or more real fallacies. Since you already have the link, I’m confident you can identify them if you try.

    Just a thought.

  • Yeah ha, you missed the point. And forgive me if I’m not impressed with a wikipedia entry that’s two sentences long.

    And I understand where you’re coming from with the superiority thing, but I don’t think they point is to feel superior. In fact, the point is to NOT feel superior and argue with respect and cooperation. We’re going to disagree, but the way we disagree is just as important as the topics we’re debating.

    In any event, keep reading.