Can someone please explain to me what The Am. Prospect is up to?

[abester]

I mean what is wrong with these guys? When I read their posts on prospect.org I'm always bewildered by their tone and weak indictment of this administrations wrong doing. The general tone of voice seems to be 'Well, this isn't really a good idea, but the President Means Well and is Honorable'. Maybe they call themselves liberal (neo-liberal would be more apt) but they sure aren't progressive. When did this happen??

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. The American Prospect is the best liberal magazine out there

So sorry its articles offer solutions and in-depth analysis rather than knee-jerk Bush hatred.

Since when the hell did "progressive" become better than "liberal" anyway? I'm damn PROUD to be a liberal.

[abester]

2. Why is it that every time I have a little bit of criticism

about the stuff someone writes I get these (implicit and/or explicit) ad-hominems on me? Let me forego the insult, and illustrate what I meant.
Yglesias writes this:
"President Bush will likely be remembered as an innovator whose ideas just didn't pan out in the end."
Furthermore, in 2004, they didn't cover any election fraud.
I concede they write quality and indepth articles as well, but its just that when it comes to The President, critisism is mild and weak.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Yglesias DOES suck. Definitely the worst Prospect correspondent

However, they're still the best magazine out there. Yglesias is the weakest link in an otherwise strong chain of writers and analysts. I prefer the international and scholarly articles of the Prospect to the rants found in The Nation or the Progressive. If I'm in the mood for a left-wing polemic rant, I can read DU for free. If I'm going to buy a magazine, I want thought-provoking material.

I'm sorry I offended you, but maybe next time you should expand a little on your critique, like you did in your reply to me. It's hard to take it seriously when you just say "The Prospect doesn't hit Bush hard enough." Mocking Bush isn't the primary function of the Prospect, for which I am grateful.

[neoblues]

5. Liberal and Progressive have Synergistic Qualities

when applied together.

As for "knee-jerk" Bush hatred--there is no "knee-jerk" about it--there's six years of very clear, explicit examples and justification. Furthermore, there is no excuse whatsoever for promoting the notion that Bush is honorable or even that he "means well" (unless you happen to be a member of "his base" (of ultra-wealthy Republicans), in which case, he certainly means you well--even if it's motivated out of selfishness and political expediency).

As for being proud to be "Liberal", you should be--but remember, too much "Pride" is not a good thing either. On the same token, "Progressives" also have a right to be proud of their beliefs, problem-solving and creative thinking skills.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. I phrased that poorly, sorry

My point was that if I wanted to read a "Bush sucks" rant, I can go to DU for free. When I buy a magazine, I want a well-researched thought-provoking piece that tells me something more in-depth than I could find on a blog or in a newspaper.

I just think this divide between "liberal" and "progressive" is a largely artificial construct that to me gives into the right-wing - I've had friends tell me that they're going to call themselves "progressive" because the right-wing had successfully smeared the word "liberal." WTF? I have no problem with the working definition of liberal.

[neoblues]

9. Fair enough. n/t.

[annabanana]

6. naw... The Nation is better, so is Mother Jones..

both fine magazines and less conciliatory.

[depakid]

3. You may be thinking of some of the writers

Matthew Yglesias, for example- or Michael Tomasky or Robert Reich. Each of these guys has their own unusual angles- and more than once, they've each had inexplicably clueless takes.

Robert Kuttner, on the other hand- is usually dead on.

[abester]

4. I agree, only Kuttner's analyses I still read

Anyway I feel I misformulated my post, lets close it up

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Reminds me of the '60s saying about "liberals".

The fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will cheer the fascists.
The moderates will watch it on TV.
The liberals will feel guilty about turning you in to the fascists and weep over your grave.