<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Media Matters - The New Republic</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/tools/syndication/tag_rss/the_new_republic</link>
<description>This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve Media Matters items matching the term: The New Republic</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America</copyright>

<item>
<title>In &#x3C;em&#x3E;Politico&#x3C;/em&#x3E;, &#x3C;em&#x3E;TNR&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s Kirchick falsely claimed Clark&#x27;s comments were part of a &#x22;pattern of attacks&#x22; on McCain as &#x22;psychologically unfit for presidential office&#x22;  </title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030011</link>
<description>In a &#x3C;em&#x3E;Politico&#x3C;/em&#x3E; op-ed, &#x3C;em&#x3E;The New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s James Kirchick cited Wesley Clark&#x27;s comments about Sen. John McCain on CBS&#x27; &#x3C;em&#x3E;&#x3C;em&#x3E;Face the Nation &#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x3C;/em&#x3E;as part of a &#x22;pattern of attacks meant to insinuate that McCain&#x27;s Vietnam experience not only shouldn&#x27;t count as meaningful &#x27;experience,&#x27; but rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office.&#x22; In fact, Clark did not &#x22;attack[]&#x22; McCain&#x27;s Vietnam experience or suggest that it &#x22;rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office.&#x22; Kirchick also asserted that &#x22;one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they [the &#x22;attacks&#x22;] were coordinated by the Obama campaign.&#x22; But Clark has been saying for months that McCain&#x27;s military service alone does not make him qualified to be president, including while he was speaking on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton&#x27;s presidential campaign.  </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030011</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:08:23 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;The New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s odd new owner</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010014</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010014</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:29:15 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;TNR&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s Peretz cropped transcript to support his smear of Soros as &#x22;a young cog in the Hitlerite wheel&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050005</link>
<description></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050005</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:22:20 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E; baselessly asserted Dem &#x22;problem&#x22;: &#x22;[L]iberal elites are disproportionately powerful in primaries ... have nominated a succession of losers&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200608150004</link>
<description>&#x3C;em&#x3E;New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E; special correspondent Thomas B. Edsall claimed that &#x22;the wing of the [Democratic] party that saw no strategic error in nominating McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry still controls the primaries.&#x22; In fact, exit polling from the 2000 and 2004 New Hampshire primaries and entrance polling from the 2000 and 2004 Iowa caucuses do not indicate that John Kerry and Al Gore performed better among &#x22;liberal elites.&#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200608150004</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:58:01 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>&#x3C;em&#x3E;New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s Peretz: Bill Clinton&#x27;s appearance &#x22;began Lieberman&#x27;s decline&#x22;</title>
<link>http://mediamatters.org/items/200608090009</link>
<description>In a post on &#x3C;em&#x3E;The New Republic&#x3C;/em&#x3E;&#x27;s weblog The Plank, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz blamed Bill Clinton for Sen. Joseph Lieberman&#x27;s defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Peretz wrote: &#x22;Lieberman and [Ned] Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton&#x27;s appearance began Lieberman&#x27;s decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points.&#x22;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mediamatters.org/items/200608090009</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:16:40 EST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>