"Even the Liberal New Republic" Does it Again
There's been a lot of hubbub in the past few days over Peter Beinart's liberal-excoriating "A Fighting Faith" article in the New Republic. Instead of addressing Beinart's substantive criticisms, however, I'd much rather take a page out of his playbook and smear him by association. Among its destinguished alumni, the New Republic is proud to have current Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes (who served "10 years as senior editor and White House correspondent for The New Republic"), "syndicated columnist and a medical doctor" Charles Krauthammer, and Mort Kondracke ("served as executive editor and senior editor of The New Republic from 1977-91").
And let's not forget TNR's current stable of liberal torch-bearers, which includes Andrew Sullivan, uber-neocon Lawrence Kaplan, and the inimitable (thank God) Marty Peretz, along with other luminaries. Given this stellar roster, I can just imagine say, ten years from now, when Beinart is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a ubiquitous commentator on the Fox/Clear Channel/Sinclair transmission belt. "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me," he'll sigh in mock resignation. "If only they'd purged the "softs," including Michael Moore and MoveOn, then perhaps I might have stayed in the liberal fold. Goodbye to all that!"
Thanks for all the memories, Pete.
UPDATE: Liberal Oasis has more.
UPDATE 2: Via commentator David, here's the very first post-9/11 article Beinart wrote. Whom does he direct his wrath toward? It's not Osama--it's those anti-globalization freaks:
"World Trade Centre ... anti capitalism ... anti globalisation ... was it one of us?" So read a Tuesday posting on www.urban75.com, a site popular with anti-globalization activists from around the world. And it suggests one small lesson we can draw from the cataclysm of September 11: The massive anti-IMF and World Bank protests scheduled for later this month in Washington must not take place. They must be canceled not because the writer of those words is correct; he or she almost certainly is not. But because it is even possible to ask the question. The anti-globalization movement is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the global inequities between rich and poor. And it is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the United States. Now, after what has happened this week, it must choose.
There ya go--anonymous Internet posters, not Osama, were evildoers in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.