i think i was eight but i might not have been that old the first time i saw a copy of the new republic. i was at my uncle's and he had a copy lying out.
i used to get the magazine after that by whining to my mother who was always so impressed that her little girl wanted to read something so 'deep' at such a young age.
the new republic wasn't worth reading then. it's not worth reading now.
it's 1 of the most hideous magazines. possibly the worst publishing because it pretends to be something it's not: left. how right leaning is the new republic? it makes the washington monthly look like like ramparts.
in the run up to the occupation of iraq, the lead up to the war, a lot has been made about the cheerleading by many publications. judy miller at the new york times was a one woman proganda organ. she's flirted with the neocons for years so that isn't surprising but the new york times should know that they will carry this humilitation until the day they cease publication.
but someone at the new york times will always scream "we were going for balance!" what's the new republic's excuse?
they sold that war in a way that may have surpassed the new york times because the new republic is supposed to be left.
it's not left. i know a little of its history and there have been times in its past where it was left.
but the idea that this is a left magazine has no bearing on the rag.
la times did a story last week talking about the new republic and the nation. the idiot author felt that the nation was too inflamatory. only some 1 who suffers under the belief that the new republic is left would dare say such a thing.
the nation's older than the new republic. it outsells the new republic by the thousands. the new republic has been propped up with the monies of it's owners for some time. martin peretz is the guy who used his wife's money to buy the mag and turn it into a rag.
do you remember the now discredited book the bell curve? which rag pushed that 'scholarship?' if you guessed the new republic, you are right. racism is a given at this rag. it's also a given that time and again they'll find a way to slam the palestinians. so perhaps a war on arabs was just the thing the rag was waiting for?
it's funny to hear hendrick hertzberg act as though when he was in charge of the new republic it was the leading magazine of the left. it wasn't left. and only some 1 like hertzberg could make that claim. why only hertzberg? he has no idea what he's written in the past. during the democratic convention he was on the majority report and janeane garofalo attempted to get him to talk about how the press had corrupted the reporting on campaigns. hertzberg acted like he had no idea what she was talking about which is strange since he was then pimping his book politics. right there in the book you'll find that argument. the book is a collection of long ago columns. hertzberg had no idea what janeane was talking about because he has no idea what he's written or what positions he's taken.
that served him well at the new republic where his time there can best be seen as appeasement.
but as bad as he was he was far from the worst.
andrew sullivan was another criminal. if you know sullivan today it's as the writer of many personals seeking "bareback" action while he himself was already infected with aids. how could he risk putting others in danger with his reckless actions?
well he worked at the new republic so maybe that's where he learned his morals.
there's something really sad about the commercials on air america for the new republic: "i'm stephanie and we tell like it like it is."
really steph? coz i'm thinking most readers don't know that the co-owner of the mag was lobbying bush to go to war with iraq days after 9-11. that would be martin peretz the man who no doubt proudly proclaims "i run a magazine because i married rich."
this is from make them accountable, http://www.makethemaccountable.com/leopold/030221_NewRepublicEditor.htm:
Many of The New Republic’s readers are unaware that Peretz, along with several other journalists and right-wing lawmakers, lobbied President Bush nine days after the September 11 terrorist attacks to start a war with Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, claiming that Iraq may be linked to the attacks, an allegation that the Bush Administration has made many times without a shred of evidence to back it up.
why should you avoid the new republic? here's marty peretz explaining the difference between his rag and the nation:
“We were for the last Gulf War and for aid to the Contras,” Peretz said. Comparing The New Republic to its close competitor The Nation, Peretz said, “Whatever The Nation was for we were against. Whatever The Nation was against we were for. The only thing we share was we were rather soft on Stalin in the late 1930s.”
so true, marty. writing for the jewish world review in october of last year, guess who the co-owner of the so-called left new republic endorsed?
did you guess george bush? you are right. but marty's of the left?
short of his finally exhausting the last of his wife's money (or her patience), little boy marty and his rag mag will never change. they were for the war. they were for the contras. they are not left. if you hear someone say they are, correct them. if you're watching a show and marty pops up looking like herman munster call and e-mail the show to let them know that you never want to hear marty called 'left.'
his rag is completely useless.
the common ills did a great job in the first post i ever read "when npr fails you, who you gonna' call? not the ombudsman." what had npr done? they'd gone and put robert kagan on to "explain" john kerry's remarks. why was that a problem? the ombudsman noted that listeners complained to him that kagan was a war hawk. i'm sure some did. i also complained about the fact that kagan was married to victoria nuland as did four of my friends.
why should being married to nuland disallow kagan from commenting on kerry? because victoria nuland works for dick cheney as his deputy assistant on national security. jeffrey dvorkin, the npr ombudsman, got complaints on that. he chose to ignore them and everyone else remained silent. even a certain so-called watch dog of the "left." (i'll be watching that watch dog and if it fails again, i'll call them to the carpet.)
in a world of cowards and appeasers only the common ills dared to call kagan and npr on the conflict of interest. guess which rag kagan's written for? the new republic. he's also written for the weekly standard. at least that rag doesn't try to pretend to be left.
peter beinart is the perfect new republic editor. he's infamous for declaring war on moveon.org and michael moore, imploring that the left purge itself of these dangerous characters.
the rag isn't worth reading and if it had any balls it would have long ago admitted it was of the right.
balls? why did i ever even bother with the rag?
anyone remember antonio sabato junior? he was a hot stud. and he was the calvin klein underwear model while andrew sullivan was the editor of the new republic. mulitple issues, including the one of my uncle's and every other one i bought, featured a full page, glossy back cover of antonio in his skivies.
black briefs, white briefs, i couldn't take my eyes off him. my favorite shots were the ones where he'd be seated with his legs spread and i study the photos in desperation trying to peer up the leg openings of his those tiny briefs trying to check out the eye candy.
sometimes junior wore socks. sometimes he wore socks and t-shirt with those briefs. somehow i found him most exciting in those little white briefs, socks and t-shirt. he looked so boyish and i held onto those copies of the rag until i was 14. there was also this one full page ad where he wears these little black briefs and is standing in profile so you get a nice shot of junior's junior.
if the new republic put a hot stud on the back cover in tiny briefs, i'd study the photo but i do not think even a hottie stripping down could get me to buy that rag again. well maybe the acer's guy.
every day after school in 8th grade, i'd come home, rush to my bedroom, close the door, pull down my panties and grab those new republics to see sexy antonio sabato junior's pubes. i probably spent an hour on that each day for a solid month. and you know what? i think i gave more thought to what was under junior's briefs and what he could do with that and how it felt and smelt and tasted than the new republic ever gave to anyone of their positions.
it's been the same knee jerk, conservative position in issue after issue as marty peretz has installed 1 editor after another. stephanie sounds really sweet on those air america commercials where she's pimping her rag but despite being given the title of publisher, she is just marty's latest mouth piece. a lot of people have come and gone before her and a lot will come and go after her but they are all just marty peretz's dummies.
the only thing the new republic should be remembered for is those full page, glossy ads of antonio sabato junior. while everything else the rag has done has hurt the nation, those ads of junior in tighty-whites at least taught me the meaning of 'it's a wet day.'
