Challenging The Pro-War New Republic Magazine

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
Weekend Edition
February 12 / 13, 2005

Takin' It to the Suites
Fighting the New Repulic(ans)
By DAVE ZIRIN

The New Republic magazine--a pro-war Democratic Party rag - thought it would be provocative to muse about killing and torturing anti-war activists. New Republic writer T.A. Frank found it cheeky to sit in and mock an anti-war panel sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the DC ISO and others. He thought it would make his colleagues chuckle to wish for "John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation." The New Republic thought they would score points with their puffy beltway buddies by printing a call for someone to "take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy." The New Republic also thought they"d get away with it. They were wrong.

On Friday, about fifty-plus anti-war and global justice activists picketed their shabby Washington DC offices. We were loud and proud demanding both print-space to rebut Frank"s psychotic rant as well as a formal apology. As we chanted gems like "Stop the Threats, Stop the Lies; New Republic Apologize" and "New Republic YOU can go Kill and Die for Texaco," their quivering editorial team remained holed upstairs, refusing to address our demands, defend Frank"s rant, or even leave the office. While their staff shook in the newly christened "New Republic Panic Room," we handed out hundreds of leaflets to passers-by outlining their nasty dirge.

Some argued we were advocating "censorship" by holding a picket. This is dead wrong. The violators of free speech here are the laptop thugs at the New Republic, calling for the heads of those whose views they despise. We were defending our right to voice dissent without being threatened by violence. By demanding print space in their magazine, we are challenging them to expand the parameters of speech around the occupation of Iraq. Far from censoring, we have made it clear that we will debate T.A. Frank and his ilk anytime, anywhere.

The New Republic is a magazine trying to stake out territory on the right wing of the Democratic Party. The New Republic believed it could earn street-cred among the DLC hacks upon whose buttocks their lips are permanently attached. The New Republic thought they could do this on the backs of our movement. They miscalculated, because unlike them, we have a spine.

:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin02122005.html

[BlueManDude]

1. TNR has been dead for 10 years at least

circulation has dropped. The are better places (Weekly Standard, Nat Review) to get your fix of RW horseshit. They were also instrumental in sinking Clinton's health care reform so it's not just the pro Likud Party foreign policy that drives it to the right. Andrew Sullivan ran the mag a few years ago - what more do you need to know? Today I would no more read it than I would the Weekly Standard.