At least one sponsor has cut ties with the New Republic after the magazine published and then quickly removed and apologized for a column about 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg’s sexuality.
The left-leaning magazine
??
Who runs TNR these days?
I missed the part about Pete’s “promiscuity” - the only sexual behavior described in that trash was in the imagination of the author. This little news item is slipping more misinformation into the bloodstream. And given that gay men are often viewed as promiscuous, it’s upholding a stereotype.
That was true back in the 50s when Henry Wallace edited it. Back then The New Republic was the only mainstream magazine to attack McCarthy right from the start. But then it took a more moderating tone into the 70s and became a neocon organ in the 80s by defending the Contras and pushing The Bell Curve crap. Oh and don’t forget when Andy Sullivan and Michael Kelly took it over and endlessly trashed Hillary’s health care proposal. Oh they looked the other way when Steven Glass published his lies.
Which is why I refer to that rag as The New Republican.
Talking Points Memo states that the article on The New Republic “remarked on Buttigieg’s sexual promiscuity.” This is inaccurate and should be corrected immediately. The New Republic article hypothesized at length about Buttigieg being promiscuous in an offensive and homophobic manner. There is no public record of Buttigieg engaging in the promiscuous behavior described in that article. Talking Points Memo is misinforming its readers by using the phrase “Buttigieg’s sexual promiscuity” as though it’s an established fact.
The sole point of the New Republic article is to make sure every potential voter knows that Buttigieg is gay. It’s as transparent as the anti Harold Ford “jungle drums” radio ad making sure that low information voters knew Ford is black (TN senate election 2006).
Ditto. TPM, please correct this article. Reading it directly makes it sounds like the deleted TNR article directly reported on/stated that there was promiscuity.
Tennessee…he lost to Bob Corker.
Left-Leaning?!?!? In what Universe?
New Republic has been the bastion of “Neo-Liberalism” and “American Exceptionalism” for decades.
Now they have sunk to the level of “The Hill” and other pseudo-journalism publications that are just thinly-veiled fronts for reich-wing propaganda.
This article was just the first of a fusillade of ghost-written hit-pieces you will see in major media outlets against any Democratic Candidate who looks like they might be getting traction for the 2020 Presidential Campaign.
Remember, the Trump Campaign has nearly $1 Billion to use in it’s smear-campaigns against any perceived opponent, and the MSM is drooling at the prospect of lapping up those ad-$$$.
What I still can’t get my head around is TNR’s initial attempt to pass off that piece as “satire.”
Somebody either needs a dictionary or needs to reread “A Modest Proposal” to know how it’s done.
“Satire” is the excuse people use when they get caught with their foot in their mouth. It never flies because you can see there was no satire involved in what was said or written but they still try.
I came here to say the same thing. You captured it however. It needs to be changed by TPM to clarify this was also part of a malicious attack by TNR. The article here continues to advance something not in evidence of any facts. It’s written in a way to suggest there is some truth to that statement, but clumsy or not, it needs to be changed.
"The column was replaced by an editor’s note on the website, apologizing for the “inappropriate and invasive” article."
Time and again we see publications retract articles, with an editor or ombudsman wording notice of the reversal in a way the readers should infer the publication’s editorial staff is nothing short of aghast and taken aback such troubling stuff made it into print or online in the first place.
Does it ever occur to anyone to vet what they publish, pre-embarrassed retraction?
I’m very disappointed that TPM updated this article to include a tweet from Emily Atkin, but did not address the misinformation perpetuated by its own sloppy characterization of the New Republic piece.
Lots of people here assuming this was a hit on Buttigieg from the right, but have you read TNR lately? They did go from centrist to neocon around the time of the Bush II administration but have swung way back to the left under new ownership in recent years—they still had a few good writers until recently (e.g. TPM alum Brian Beutler) but these days it reads like it’s written by a bunch of Maoist undergrads. I would have guessed this was a hit from the left (despite the homophobia) by people who view Buttigieg as too centrist. Tell me if you think I’m wrong.
Edit: See excerpt from article here. Author is gay and uses “neoliberal” as an epithet. He’s attacking from the left.
Nicole Lafond: Did you really mean to refer to Mayor Pete’s “promiscuity”? If so, would you care to cite the evidence of it chapter and verse? If you were quoting, or even paraphrasing the TNR report would you mind documenting that as well?
Ok you provided me with a good belly laugh for your homage to Alex Jones!
Collateral damage:
No one is easier to manipulate than a Zealot.
To a Zealot, nothing is off-limits. It does not matter their political leanings; Left, or Right. They are two sides of the same coin.
Since they are convinced of their own self-righteousness they will (and do) say anything about anyone to achieve the end goal of promoting THEIR IDEALS.
To a Zealot: The End Justifies the Means.
So, you get articles like this from people who, frankly, support someone else that Buttigieg is “taking votes from” and they are desperate to support THEIR candidate no matter the means.
Get used to it.
The Democratic Circular Firing Squad is gearing up to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory and re-elect Donald Trump as President, just as the Twitter-Verse and it’s Russian Trolls intends.
But, to the Zealots, the view from up their on their Cross will be spectacular.