Reply #1: The New Republic doesn't have the right to call itself a liberal magazine

[La_Serpiente]

The National Review and The New Republic recently went into a collaboration where a a liberal magazine and a conservative magazine would team up. However, there are many libertarian, conservative, and neo-conservative writers at The New Republic. Jonathan Chait, one of the editors, and Andrew Sullivan, a gay libertarian, and others run the place.

They had a this writer, Daniel Drezner ( His Blog ) who is a "self-proclaimed Libertarian-Republican" write an entry on their website. He wrote about the South American crisis in Bolivia and how they foreced out De Lozada (who eventually moved to the South and Central American dictatorships in exile capital of the world, Miami, because they are friendly with the United State) He wrote in his article that the reason why the people were pissed were not primarily because of the oppression the indigenous people suffered, but because of a natural gas pipeline that would run through Chile, whom the Bolivians hate because the Chileans took over its access to a harbor early in the last century. Although this could have been the "sparking" factor, the resentment of de Lozada has been occuring for YEARS. He threw out the idea that this had anything to do with his ousting. If anything, this was the underlying reason.

The New Republic needs reform. The Nation and Mother Jones are the true liberal, progressive magazines. The New Republic is middle of the road.