TNR Hit Piece on Kucinich....

Unfortunately I no longer subscribe to TNR so I don't know what the piece contains... Can anyone fill me in with the details? Here's how it starts...

On a sunny Saturday in New Hampshire not long ago, Dennis Kucinich laid out for me the path that would lead him to the presidency. "I think what will happen," he explained, "is that the tremendous demand for integrity and authenticity is going to cause my candidacy to emerge powerfully in the closing weeks of the primary campaign to change it all." The two of us were sitting in the backseat of an SUV driven by an aide, shuttling between campaign events. Small in stature but loud in voice, Kucinich held forth on any number of matters related to his presidential bid, from his opposition to the ongoing war in Iraq to his opposition to a future war in Iran. But the issue that got him most energized was the very fact of the bid itself. "As there's increased awareness that my candidacy represents a real departure from business as usual, that I'm the only authentic peace candidate, that I'm the only one who has real consistency and integrity--" Kucinich paused, seeming to have lost his train of thought. Then, as if he had suddenly retrieved it, he blurted out, "You know, I expect to be the next president of the United States!"...

That last sentence does make him sound a bit delusional, though you can hardly fault him for thinking positive.

Edit: Several folks are justifiably asking why I think it's a hit piece. Well, the title is "Dennis Kucinich: The Loony Who Is Running". Besides, if you know TNR you'll know a fair piece about someone like Kucinich is highly unlikely unless it's authored by Judis or Cohen.

I like him, I think he's a good guy.

and editorial slant of TNR indicates that to me. I'd like to read the piece though--maybe it's fair.

flatly stating that the rest of the field is inconsistent and lacks integrity
is probably not good for the eventual nominee.

his lousy diplomatic skills, and he does come across as a nut.

Which of the candidates currently running has, within the last 10 years made a fundamental switch in their position on the following three issues?

1. Abortion
2. Stem Cell Research
3. Flag Desecration amendment

fairly badly, and/or perhaps even demoralize our base if he keeps this up.

I don't recall him coming off as this sanctimonious ever before. HE is the
only candidate with consistency and integrity? puh-leeeeeeeze. :eyes:

DK dropping at least 10pts in the polls.

:evilgrin:

If a person wants to run in a primary for president then why shouldn't he. What I find that is stupid, self serving and not in the best interest of this country are people who loose in the primary and then mount a campaign for president spliting the vote and helping the republicans. Can anybody say NADER.

IS a hit piece waiting to happen. Nothing from this right-wing rag is to be believed.


For an example of where this bullshit is coming from, check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3377932

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2766040.ece


On Edit: What's sad are the right-wing DU'ers who also swallow the right-wing lies, hook, line and sinker...

The New Republic (from Wikipedia):

The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of opinion published twice per month (published weekly before March 2007) and with a circulation between 40,000 and 65,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz. The current editor is Franklin Foer. Politically, the magazine tends to support modern liberal political policies.

National Review (from Wikipedia):

National Review ("NR") is a biweekly magazine of political opinion, founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. While the print version of the magazine is available online to subscribers, the web site's free content is essentially a separate publication. Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events.

"Never Mind" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella :hi:




Howeveer, the last time I had a subscription to TNR, there wasn't much difference...TNR's pretty much a right-wing rag too...

Has TNR gotten more "liberal" since the 80s/90s?

There was a short period when Kinsley edited the magazine....then Sullivan took over... then Beinart. Now Foer. I still appreciate the writing of John Judis and Jonathan Cohen. Also John Chait can be amusing, and the academic blog on the website makes for good reading.

I wouldn't call them right-wing because they don't endorse Republicans. Basically, it's DLC on domestic policy, Likudite on foriegn policy. They endorsed Joe Liebermann in 2004, against the wishes of much of the staff. Marty Peretz's views on foriegn policy are the most right-wing aspect....plus they publish neocons like Lawrence Kaplan.

"Basically, it's DLC on domestic policy, Likudite on foriegn policy. They endorsed Joe Liebermann in 2004, against the wishes of much of the staff. Marty Peretz's views on foriegn policy are the most right-wing aspect....plus they publish neocons like Lawrence Kaplan"

This is ALL far-right wackjob territory for me...

I loath the DLC, Likud, liebermann. They have nothing good to contribute to the Earth or its Peoples.

When I subscribed, briefly, back in the late 80s/early 90s (can't remember which), I was appalled at how right-wing they were although their advertising conned me into thinking that they were "balanced", etc. I cancelled after the first couple of issues. I got bills from them for nearly a year afterward.

Fuck that rag...