|
I've been a subcriber since just before the 2000 election, and until recently, I've always felt the editorial bent of the magazine has fit nicely with my personal take on the issues. They've also done a good job of keeping me on top of things. For example, the first I read of Howard Dean was in the pages of TNR.
I was a little surprised when the magazine came out in favor of the Iraq War, but I had trusted their judgement in the past, so I decided to see how it played out before judging them too much. Now, with the post-war situation becoming the debacle that many predicted. The magazine is in the embarassing situation of trying to justify their previous stance. Their position that it was the right thing to do, but with the wrong people in charge just doesn't fly with me.
The final straw was Martin Peretz's piece in their latest issue in which he writes as if the post-Iraq strategy is going EVEN BETTER than expected. I thought for a moment that I had accidentally been sent the latest copy of the Weekly Standard. :grr:
I'm tired of hearing these writers try to justify Bush's radical shift in foreign policy.
Not to mention their coverage of the Democratic candidates. Initially I thought they actually supported Howard Dean, yet recently they seem to be overly willing to heap praise on the likes of Joe Lieberman. For the month of July, Lieberman has the highest score of any candidate, yet Dean had the lowest.
I think The Nation may have just found a new subscriber.
|