Like the Nation, try the New Republic.

Today on break at the bookstore I went for the Nation as I always do Mondays and without looking came up with the NR. Still not noticing I flipped to the editorial section like I always do in the Nation. A scathing indictment of the Bush numbers and Supply side economics followed. :headbang: :woohoo:

...it is a Neocon mag. LOL!

they sometimes have some good articles.

Beinhart has decided very recently that invading I raq was not such a good idea. So, he now has a book out on foreign policy explaining the right way to win the war on terror.

and I'm sure if he weren't personally good friends with him, he wouldn't have done so. Gore's politics have shifted dramatically from Peretz's neocon views.

TNR would be a good magazine if they spent less time attacking liberals. When they actually go after Bush, they don't do a bad job and they have some decent writers over there.

editor-in-chief of The New Republic since 1974.

But what editorial staff endorsed Al Gore for President in their print edition on the eve of the 2004 election? Looking beyond 2004, the TNR staff endorsed... Al Gore. Here, you can read the the opening to the online version that was posted in late October of 2004.

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=redux&s=editors103000

But who was on Joe Scarborough about a month ago touting Al Gore for 2008? Well that would be... Peter Beinart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2665565&mesg_id=2665565

So here we have the current editor and editor at large - Peretz and Beinart - endorsing Al Gore. And we have the magazine itself, disgusted with both candidates in 2004, endorsing Al Gore.

But they endorsed Lieberman - the neocons!

But so did the following "neocons:"

Barbara Boxer
Chris Dodd
Harry Reid
League of Conservation Voters
Human Rights Campaign
The AFL-CIO, and a host of other labor unions/

NEOCONS!

and while I was unaware of their endorsement of Gore in '04, I remember very clearly how they attacked him when he came out against the war.

Sorry, but they lost a lot of credibility with their chearleading over the war. And Peretz is a dick and more or less endorsed Bush in '04 and attacked Kerry nonstop (in fact the entire magazine gave him a half hearted, weak endorsement only at the last minute). I don't have any respect for him. I think he brings up good points with his endorsement of Gore, but I still don't like or trust him.

And as for Lieberman's endorsements, other senators are almost always going to endorse a sitting incumbent senator of the same party. I even used to defend his votes on domestic policy, but his attacking other Dems was the last draw.

And Peretz is a dick and more or less endorsed Bush in '04

No, he did not.

don't have any respect for him. I think he brings up good points with his endorsement of Gore, but I still don't like or trust him.

But that doesn't make him or the magazine a neocon.

And as for Lieberman's endorsements, other senators are almost always going to endorse a sitting incumbent senator of the same party.

But that doesn't make them, or the numerous labor unions, neocons.

A President Kerry would be a disaster for Israel
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1004/peretz_2004_10_18.php3

And in a post-election piece he wrote "John Kerry would not have been a good president; he might even have been a dangerously bad one..."

http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2004/11/martin_peretz_s.html

Gore didn't run in 2004.

:)

OK, I stand corrected.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

many laughs...nuff said! :rofl: :rofl:

"Barbara Boxer
Chris Dodd
Harry Reid
League of Conservation Voters
Human Rights Campaign
The AFL-CIO, and a host of other labor unions/"

endorsed Leiberman for relection to his Senate seat in 2006. NOT THE SAME THING.

I Knew Beinart had said he liked Gore for 2008, but was unaware that Peretz did.

In 2004, they pushed Bush's position on the war. In addition, Peretz's long time dislike of Kerry made the magazine (especially as it was considered liberal) seem to favor Bush - the weak endorsement aside.

(BTW, Peretz was one of Gore's professors at Yale).

LOL!

Still doesn't make much sense, given that Peretz hates most of what Gore now stands for.

Peretz had another recent hissy fit about losing Larry Summers and how mean and nasty all those professors in Cambridge are (especially the wimmin). Peretz makes me sick. I shouldn't read his column, bad for my blood pressure.

Sorry.

Gore is a Harvard man. Peretz still carries on about all those nasty and mean faculty members (especially wimmin)who helped get rid of Peretz's Golden Boy, Larry Summers. His column is a big waste of time, IMHO.

TNR claimed it was a "liberal" magazine and then spent most of the Eighties cheerleading for Reagan's foreign policy(they rabidly bashed the Sandinistas, lovingly backed the Salvadoran police state opposed the Nuclear Freeze movement)
and for demonizing any criticism of Israel, even when Shamir was prime minister, as antisemitism.

Also, they've were big supporters of the Iraq War when it really mattered and they've been implacably hostile to progressive activists and to anyone in the non-Beltway wing of the Democratic party.

So the shoe fits on that one.

It was neocon to oppose the nuclear freeze movement and support the Reagan Central America policies. It couldn't be called anything else.

Good God, Wyldwolf, YOU didn't support the Contras, did you? They were murderous scum and no good came of them.

Was supporting the first gulf war neocon? Why or why not?

Kosovo?

Hey, just the other day, someone with a self proclaimed progressive stripe said Clinton's economic policies were neocon and the Harry Truman was a neocon? Agree?

If not, why are YOU right and the one making that claim wrong?

Does supporting one policy created and endorsed by neocons make one a neocon? Two? Three?

Kosovo was more ambiguous, since at least some good came of that, as opposed to, say, the Contra War and the victory of the Salvadoran Army, both of which benefited the rich and the gringos and no one else.

Truman would not technically be a neocon, since he never had a past on the left(as opposed to today's neocons, most of whom started out as Trotskyists, which may be why recovering Trotskyist and nonrecovering drunk asshole Christopher Hitchens has an affinity for them.)

I don't see where my post and the one you mention are in direct conflict. We were addressing different issues and different presidents.

recovering neocon.

Ha! thought you had me there, didn't ya?

You can slide on one, but two makes you a card carrying member?

There's still the matter of Clinton's economic policies. The post I mentioned said they were neocon. You said there isn't much difference in your stand. So... Clinton economic policies... neocon?

The economic policies Clinton campaigned on weren't quite neocon, the commitment to universal health care was a position to the left of what Mondale had said on the issues. The program Clinton actually carried out was conservatism by default. NAFTA, which Clinton pledged to despite the opposition of the vast majority of the American people, WAS neocon, in the sense that it put the power of corporations and a ruling technocratic elite above the popular will. NAFTA created a set of economic policies that no government is allowed to deviate from, whatever the program that government might be elected on.

The one-time tax hike on higher income taxpayers wasn't neocon...the obedient signing of Rush Limbaugh's wet dream of a welfare bill(he should have let it become law over his veto)was neocon.

On balance, more neocon than not.

You're trying to pin me down to something but I can't really understand why.

His neocon bona fides are stacking up!

nt.

Fine. That in itself means nothing.

Nor does it prove anything about progressives who might support Gore now because he's moved to the left of the
positions he took in the past. I'm not a committed Gore supporter, so you're barking up the wrong tree trying to nail me on hypocrisy on this one.

You pursued this whole exchange for no real reason.

Give this a rest. It's pointless and annoying. And, as I told you, I'm not a Gore supporter and Gore isn't running in '08. You act like you've caught me in something and you haven't. There's no reason for you to be belaboring this.

..the rest?

Give this a rest. It's pointless and annoying.

Then quit responding.

The Iraq War is a huge difference. Not all issues are equal. Gore is also being much more open to activists in general and has made it clear that he won't run again like he did in 2000.

That's all there is to say. You need to let this go.

...a neocon?

Gore is also being much more open to activists in general

So you have source material that shows he's now opposed to the "neocon economic and foreign policy" of the Clinton years?

That's all there is to say. You need to let this go.

Then why do you keep saying more?

Stop this already. There's no reason for you to keep beating this dead horse.

Like, say... Bill Clinton?

Stop this already. There's no reason for you to keep beating this dead horse.

Neigh....

I don't know why you can't drop this whole thing you've been dragging out in this thread.

GOre's policies seemed to change abruptly after losing in 2000 - for the better. I hope at some time - he writes something about this change because he has the moral standing to do so. He was one of the most hawkish Democrats and clearly supported an interventionist policy in the 80s and 90s. Then, in 2001, he argued restraint in intervening in Iraq. It would be interesting to know his world view now on how the US should act in the world.

It is a neocon rag where liars like Steven Glass, Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly cut their teeth

back in the Reagan years. I find folks proclamations that this is a new phenom and thus something to vilify the NR over a bit funny - as a lot of folks stopped reading it in the mid reagan years. That said, it serves a good niche market, and sometimes has some thoughtful commentary. Ironic thing, though, over the years I have been more likely to pick up The Economist (british right of center) than I would be to pick up the NR. Almost as if the positions were similar, but the distance of the view (eg outsiders looking at the country) provided some slightly more insightful analysis. But that's just my take on it.

Once upon a time, it was edited by someone named Henry Wallace who had enough guts to stand for liberal principles.

When other magazines (INCLUDING The Nation) buckled under to Joe Mc Carthy, The New Republic didn't. Single-handedly, Wallace fought Mc Carthy with all his might, then he finally got an assist from Ed Murrow. Wallace said the best thing he did was topple Mc Carthy. And that was the truth.

When Wallace died, the NEW REPUBLIC mutated into the NEW REPUBLICAN, refuting it's heritage like any ass attending a David Horowitz "Second Thoughts" forum.

Now we have a president who makes Joe Mc Carthy look like Don Knotts, and Peretz and his pals from various Neo-con thinktanks (like Social Democrats, USA) endlessly kiss Bush's ass and float in the Ayn Randian LASSEIZ FAIRYLAND where the pimps and the whores of the Nazi Republican Party glide along and look down with contempt at the masses.

And it's left-bashing isn't quite as openly vicious. Well, except when it was obsessively denouncing the Labour Party in the 1980's for actually daring not to be Thatcherite(a heresy that party has now, tragically, repented).

fromthe day they brought Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke on board to give "balance".. That was in the 1980's. Before that, it was my magazine of choice.

starting this weekend - Loved that movie, Michael Kelly was the editor at that time, who was apparantly "asleep at the wheel"

Sun, Jul 2 @ 11:30 AM
Sun, Jul 2 @ 6:45 PM
Mon, Jul 10 @ 9:00 PM
Tue, Jul 11 @ 1:00 AM
Tue, Jul 11 @ 6:00 AM



http://www.shatteredglassmovie.com/index_flash.html

I had never heard of the movie. It looks interesting. I remember reading about the whole Steven Glass fiasco a while back.

BTW isn't Kelly the guy that was killed in Iraq a couple years ago?

At that point, TNR were also passionate supporters of civil rights. Now, they whine about "quotas" just like COMMENTARY does. If the Martin Peretz of 2006 were transported back in time to cover the Chicago convention in 1968, he'd probably write a big editorial CHEERING Daley and the cops.

They gave up their soul to influence the insiders who've given the party losing election advice for decades. What a brilliant choice.

tnr called him out on it, and because he's delusional he has lumped tnr with the far right

TNR LIED about some e-mails.

I wouldn't give The New Republican to my bird to relieve himself on. It's so full of lies and venom, it would kill him.

KOS did something and asked bloggers not to talk about it.

read this:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/06/apology.html

also:

http://billmon.org/archives/002482.html

KOS did, in fact, asked other bloggers not to mention the Armstrong SEC incident. And when TNR did, he got a bit angry.

about a email from Steve Gillard.

I subscribed to TNR for 10 fucking years until Andrew Sullivan shot his load of poison into that once great periodical and Peretz went "death to the Palestinians at any cost"(IMHO) and then they succumbed to DLC inbreeding.

If a person loves the DLC, the war in Iraq and the policy of Israeli right-wingers then TNR is for you. But that makes one irrelevant just like TNR.

the Senate. Comparing it to The Nation is like comparing Lieberman to Boxer.

Wow. I'm sold

:sarcasm:


New Republic is toxic.

Nice comparison. :sarcasm:

Can anyone tell the difference between The NEW REPUBLICAN and the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS?

If Hitler is alive in the future.

Cowards.

nt.

...then again, I haven't seen the latest issue, so that may have changed.

I am still waiting for him to start a gay chapter of the "Opus Dei". :rofl:

but I digress....

another RW Clinton-bashing supporter of the mess in Iraq.

If he were alive I'm quite certain he wouldn't be admitting his mistake or attacking Bush.

He was a vicious thug.

may he R.I.P. :eyes:

He was nothing but a cheap-assed presstitute who regurgitated the talking points the Republican Party gave him.

Mr Power Glutes has repeatedly said the best thing he did was torpedo Hillary's health care plan.

Now 50 million people go without health care thanks to that cheap Tory whore.

Don't get me started about that liar Michael Kelly...

...Outside of the liars who write for The New REPUBLICAN, there are maybe 4 or 5 others who love Liberman's backstabbing and Bush-whoreing.

Which is why Ned Lamont WILL send LIEberman to the unemployment line.

Are you saying that every voter who votes for Lieberman is DLC? Sound like it.

The majority of Democratic voters will reject that ass-kissing Bush worshipper who lives to stab Democrats in the back.

Who advocates censorship with his pal Bill "Oh beat me up and whip me Mistress in Leather" Bennett?

LIEberman

Who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back over Monica?

LIEberman

Who told Al Gore to give up in 2000?

LIEberman

Who has been the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq mess?

LIEberman

Who stabbed the Democrats in the back by torpedoing the Kerry amendment?

LIEberman

Who loves to get french kissed on the mouth by Bush?

LIEberman

Who is gonna get fired by the voters of Connecticut in August?

LIEberman!

If you don't understand the answer, go ask LIEberman's pals, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. They both endorsed him for re-election.

Anyone who votes for LIEberman is supporting Coulter and Malkin.

Because it's the exception to the rule.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Nation has integrity, something the idiot lying Republican Press Whores at the New Republican have no clue exists.

eom

Where have you been the last two years? The Nation is now the most widely read weekly political opinion magazine in the U.S. It has a circulation of 187,625 (from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/passing_the_torch)

"The Nation, which claimed 20,000 subscribers in 1978, today boasts a circulation of 187,625 and is the most widely read weekly political opinion magazine in America. Its readership has nearly doubled since the 2000 presidential election. The Nation's website draws more than 800,000 unique visitors a month. "

versus: "The New Republic has made a business decision to allow its rate base -- the number of subscribers a publication promises its advertisers -- to shrink from an inflated 85,000 to a core readership of about 60,000. As a consequence and, perhaps, in some measure because of the magazine's stand on the war, audited circulation is now 61,723"

links:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/passing_the_torch

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/2/20219/62189

"to shrink from an inflated 85,000 to a core readership of about 60,000" ? Does that mean they were giving away 30% of their magazines to maintain the 85,000 promise or were they lying to the advertisers before?

and support the Iraq war. It may have been a "business decision", as in, "Well, let's not worry about what our readers want; let's just accept that we'll lose some of our subscribers."

The Nation magazine has lost money in all but three or four years of operation and is sustained by a group of over 25,000 donors called the Nation Associates who donate funds to the periodical above and beyond their annual subscription fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation

As a magazine that loses money in even the flushest of times, The Nation needs extra help in this time of crisis. For that, we count on the support of a group of very special friends called The Nation Associates.

http://www.thenation.com/associates/

...because of the generous donations of our benefactors, the Nation has always given subscriptions to those who couldn't otherwise afford one..."

A Matter of Opinion
Victor S. Navasky

Hmmm... losing money, wealthy benefactors keeping it afloat, free subscriptions... sounds like an artificially inflated subscription rate.

Then there was that rather nasty incident involving the ADC, The Flame, and an ad that appeared in the Nation denying the existence of Palestinians.

I suspect they're the last three or four.

The Nation Associates are not "wealthy benefactors". I am one, and I'm a poor graduate student. Donating any amount makes you a Nation Associate; I donate $75 per year, because The Nation is one of the few publications out there that dare to criticize the Administration. If TNR is not losing money or getting private sponsorship, it must be because it's not doing anything that requires money, such as investigative journalism.

There is no such thing as a free subscription to The Nation. The quote in your post is referring to keeping the subscription price down so that more people can afford a subscription. And it's not that cheap, either; it's $49. Some people donate subscriptions to high-school libraries; if you call that an artificial inflation of the subscription rate ... well, it's hard to argue against that sort of "logic."

As for the controversial ad, you are distorting what happened. The Nation does not censor ads. It does, however, state very clearly that the views expressed in the ads it carries are not necessarily those of The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/mediakit/policy/

You seem to have a personal bias against The Nation, judging from the vague and misleading accusations in your post.

But in the many years of their existence, they've lost money in all but 3 or 4 years.

There is no such thing as a free subscription to The Nation. The quote in your post is referring to keeping the subscription price down so that more people can afford a subscription.

LOL! Then why did Navasky, who was editor of The Nation from 1978 until 1995, and its publisher and editorial director 1995 to 2005, and now is the publisher emeritus, SAY there were free subscriptions?

As I pointed out already, the quote in your post says nothing about free subscriptions:



If you are not lying, as it seems you are, provide a link to the precise statement where Navasky refers specifically to "free" subscriptions. Or tell us how we can get these free subscriptions. Your quote simply says that supporters have allowed The Nation to keep its subscription price low so that people who are not wealthy can afford it. You seem to be completely clueless about how difficult it is for most magazines to keep their subscription prices affordable. Magazines go under all the time; The Nation is the oldest surviving weekly in the country:

from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/passing_the_torch:



Your posts are so obviously biased and distorted that they effectively argue in favor of The Nation, not against it.

Oh well, I'll get Al next time.

The Progressive is good, too. Every liberal/progressive should subscribe to both.

Sure it isn't as radical as The Nation or others, but it's still part of the solution and not the problem.

radical leftist from a DLC apologist perspective.

I got suckered into subscribing in the late 80's and promptly canceled my subscription when I found it filled with neo-con drivel...

I switched to the Nation.